Full text of "Minutes"
DOCUMF\- DEPARTMENT
San Francisco Public Library
Sji floor
REFERENCE BOOK
Not to be taken from the Library
PtB i 6 »'J<:
3 1223 06010 6367
City and County of £an Francisco
Meeting Minutes
Finance and Labor Committee
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano
Clerk: Mary Red
JWU;-
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
94102-4689
Wednesday, March 01, 2000
10:00 AM
Regular Meeting
City Hall, Room 263
Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano.
Members Absent: Sue Bierman.
Meeting Convened
The meeting convened at 10: 10 a.m.
000087 [CEQA Findings - San Bruno Jail No. 3 Replacement Project)
Resolution endorsing the Planning Commission's certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and
adopting environmental findings (and a statement of overriding considerations) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines in connection with the approval of a design-build finance
contract and various other approvals related to the County Jail No. 3 replacement project. (Sheriff)
(Fiscal impact; Environmental Impact Report Addendum dated January 3, 2000; draft EIR published February
28, 1998; companion measure to File 000088.)
1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
2/23/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Micheal Hennessey, ShenfT; Mark Primeau, Director, Department of Public
Works; Supervisor Yee; Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Joanne Hoeper, Deputy City Attorney; Monique Moyer, Mayor's Office of
Public Finance; Jim Ruane, City Councilman, San Bruno, CA., Chuck Zelnik; Carol Livingood; Annette Jacobs; Supervisor Bierman.
Continued to March 1 , 2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Monique Moyer. Mayor's Office of
Public Finance: Mark Primeau. Director. Department of Public Works; Michael Hennessey. Sheriff;
Supervisor Yee; Supennsor Ammiano. Opposed: Richard Handlen.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
WAR - 3 2m
SAN FRANCISCO
P UBLIC LIBRARY
City and County of San Francisco
Primed at .»:•*/ /Ml on
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
Wart /i /, 2000
000088 ICounty Jail No. 3 Replacement Project|
Ordinance authorizing the Sheriffs Department, the Department of Public Works, the City Architect, th
Attorney's Office and the Mayor's Office of Public Finance to negotiate and enter into a design-build finance
contract with Prison Realty Trust for the County Jail No. 3 replacement project. (Sheriff)
(Fiscal impact; Companion measure to File 000087)
1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I ibor c ommittee
2/23/00, CONTINUED Heard in Committee Speaker:, Micheal Hennessey, Sheriff; Mark Primeau, Director. Department ol Public
Works, Supervisor Yee. Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Joanne Hoc per. Deputy ( ity Attorney Monique Mover Ms
Public Finance. Jim Ruanc. City Councilman, San Bruno. CA , Chuck /elnik. Carol I mngood. Annette Jacobs, Supervisor Bierman
Continued to March I, 2000.
Heard in Committee Speakers: Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst's Office. Monique Miner. Mayor's Office of
Public Finance; Mark Primeau. Director. Department of Public Works; Michael Hennessi .
Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano. Opposed Richard Handlen
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE.
Ordinance authorizing the Sheriffs Department, the Department of Public Works, the City Architect, the On
Attorney's Office and the Mayor's Office of Public Finance to negotiate a design-build contract with Prison
Realty Trust for the County Jail No. 3 replacement project; subject to further Board of Supervisors approval.
(Sheriff)
(Fiscal impact; Companion measure to File 000087)
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000242 (Appropriating funds to Gay and Lesbian Historical Society]
Supervisors Leno, Katz. Ammiano. Bierman
Ordinance appropriating $60,000 of General Fund Reserve for a one-time grant to the Gay and Lesbian
Historical Society of Northern California, through the Mayor's Office, for fiscal year 1999-2000.
2/7/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and labor Committee
Continued to March 8. 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000271 (Appropriating S508.000. Trial Court, to pay for increased costs of indigent defense in adult criminal
and juvenile delinquency cases]
Ordinance appropriating S558.000 from the General Fund Reserve to fund the increased costs of indigent
defense in adult criminal and juvenile delinquency cases for the Trial Court for fiscal year 1999-2000.
providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Controller)
(Fiscal impact.)
2/9/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst Alan Carlson. Chief Executive Officer. Trial
Courts; Supervisor Yee. The question was divided concerning $50,000 for increase in hourly rate for
investigators , see File 000383 .
DIVIDED.
City- and County of San Francisco
Primed <u 3:41 PM on 3/lAKt
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 1, 2000
Ordinance appropriating $508,000 from the General Fund Reserve to fund the increased costs of indigent
defense in adult criminal and juvenile delinquency cases for the trial court for Fiscal Year 1999-2000,
providing for ratification of action previously taken, placing $254,000 on reserve. (Controller)
(Fiscal impact.)
Amended to place $254,000 on resen>e.
RECOMMENDED AS DIVIDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000383 [Appropriating $50,000, Trial Court, to pay increase in hourly rate for private investigators!
Ordinance appropriating $50,000 from the General Fund Reserve to fund an increase in the hourly rate for
private investigators working through the court's Indigent Defense Program, providing for ratification of action
previously taken, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. (Controller)
(Fiscal Impact)
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Alan Carlson, Chief Executive Officer, Trial
Courts; Supervisor Yee. Divided from File 00027 J.
DIVIDED.
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000272 [Appropriating $600,000 for the clean-up project to remove 2,000 tons of contaminated debris from the
17 acres of PUC-VVater Department bayside property leased to Peninsula Sportman's Club)
Ordinance appropriating $600,000 of Water Fund balance to fund initial clean-up activities of San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission Bayside property located west of the Dumbarton Bridge, for fiscal year 1999-
2000. (Controller)
(Fiscal impact.)
2/9/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Steve Medberry, Public Utilities
Commission; Rona Sandler, Deputy City Attorney; Ted Lakey; Deputy City Attorney; Supervisor Yee.
Amended to place $505,368 on reserve.
AMENDED.
Ordinance appropriating $600,000 of Water Fund balance to fund initial clean-up activities of San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission Bayside property located west of the Dumbarton Bridge, for fiscal year 1999-
2000; placing $505,368 on reserve. (Controller)
(Fiscal impact.)
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Primed at 3:41 rU on I .' N
4 4760
I PL 02/1'.
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
\lanh I, 20ttO
000273 [Appropriating $507,025 for the 1999-2000 Joint Powers Board C altrain Capital Plan|
Ordinance appropriating $507,025 to General City Responsibility, payments to other governments, and
rescinding $507,025 from lease-purchase, to provide funds for San Francisco's share of the capital
improvement budget at the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller)
(Fiscal impact.)
2/9/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance ami I abor ( ommmee
Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst. Matlicu Hvmel Mayor's Office of Finance
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000244 [Appropriating $1,788,089, Department of Elections, to off-set cost of 1999 December run-ofr. and to
update voter files|
Supervisors Newsom, Bierman
Ordinance appropriating $2,300,097 ($2,1 18,610 from the General Fund Reserve and S181.487 from various
governmental revenues) for salaries, fringe benefits, other current expenses, materials and supplies, and
equipment for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller)
(Fiscal impact.)
2/7/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce Budget Analyst's Office. Vaomi Nishioka, Department oj
Elections. Supervisor Yee, Ed Harrington. Controller, Supervisor Newsom. The question was divided
concerning $502,008 for new vote st anning system . See File 000384 .
DIVIDED.
Ordinance appropriating SI. 788,089 ($1,606,602 from the General 1-und Reserve Jtid $181,487 from various
governmental revenues) for salaries, fringe benefits, other current expenses, materials and supplies, and
equipment for the Department of Elections for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. (Controller)
(Fiscal impact.)
Amended to reduce by SI 0,000, as Department of Elections will not need to enter into contract with a phone
bank service company for the March 7. 2000 election.
RECOMMENDED AS DIV IDED by the following Note:
Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000384 (Appropriating S502.008. Department of Elections, for new Vote Scanning System|
Ordinance appropriating $502,008 from the General Fund Reserve for temporary salaries, minor furnishings
and equipment, for the new Vote Scanning System at the Department of Elections, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
(Controller)
(Fiscal Impact)
Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst's Office: Naomi Xishioka, Department of
Elections; Supervisor Yee; Ed Harrington. Controller; Supervisor Newsom. Divided from File 000244
DIVIDED.
Continued to March 8, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Primed at 3:41 PM on iZVO
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 1, 2000
000235 [Approving the concession leases of Travelex America, Inc. to operate two (2) ATM facilities at the
Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $240,500 for each lease]
Resolution approving two Automated Teller Machine Leases for the existing and New International Terminal
Buildings between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission. (Airport Commission)
2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Continued to March 8, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000236 [Approving the concession lease of Travelex America, Inc. to operate a foreign currency exchange office
at the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $4,127,500)
Resolution approving the Foreign Currency Exchange Lease in the Existing and New International Terminal
Buildings between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, actmg by and through its
Airport Commission. (Airport Commission)
2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Continued to March 8, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Ammiano, Yee
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000268 [Approving the concession lease of Host International, Inc. for a specialty store and newsstand located at
the North Terminal Hub of the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $2,550,000]
Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub Prmcipal Retail Concession lease between Host International,
Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport
Commission)
2/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Jon Ballesteros. Airport Commission;
Supervisor Ammiano; Ted Lakey. Deputy City Attorney. Continued to March 8, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000275 [Establishing monthly contribution to Health Service Trust Fund by City and County, Unified School
District, and Community College District for fiscal year 2000-2001 1
Resolution establishing monthly contribution amount to Health Service Trust Fund. (Department of Human
Resources)
2/9/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Bart Duncan. Acting Deputy Director, Health
Service System; Supervisor Yee.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Primed at 3:41 PM
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes March 1.2000
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1151 a.m
City- and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at 3:41 P\f on ] 2 00
t ^rd x^hi^. Government Documents Section
/t*' 7~~ v so\ Main I ihrorw
CITY AND COUNTY SWJtSHL/S OF S.A
././
Susan Horn
Government
Main Library
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
February 24, 2000
TO: .Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: ^Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Items 1 and 2 - Files 00-0088 and 00-0067
Note: This proposed ordinance and proposed resolution were continued from the
February 23, Finance and Labor Committee meeting.
Departments: Sheriff
Department of Public Works (DPW)
City Architect
Mayor's Office of Public Finance (MOPF)
Planning
Item: File 00-0088: Ordinance authorizing the Sheriffs Department,
the Department of Public Works, the City Architect, the City
Attorney's Office and the Mayor's Office of Public Finance to
negotiate and enter into a design-build/finance contract with Prison
Realty Trust for the County Jail No. 3 Replacement Project.
File 00-0087: Resolution endorsing the Planning Commission's
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and
adopting environmental findings pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the approval
of a design-build/finance contract for the County Jail No. 3
Replacement Project.
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
FEB 2 9 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Me raq L tpJ?j& w^Gplftjiutteel '
>c]/\ 9 ,.(iMa^h^V2^^Fciai«i$cerCHn|ioy!ttee Meeting
Description:
Background
*•/-<♦ ■ '*•
, tj ;
i ] .; n 1,11 jd * n ^ a y °^ 1991, an action was filed against the City (Jones v. ~
[jBVoiqqB and County of San Francisco et al.) challenging that the conditi<
at County Jail No. 3 in San Bruno were in violation of
• w , or.-/ "lOjrwi rtl .Si constitutional requirements. The United States District Cqur.t
:: fi i ; ,i ; ." ft i,i(j to f ; ;jr.c", concluded in 1997 that the Jail violated the United States
Constitution. The District Court specifically found that the existing
. rrv'J ,,fi fJ-tr i, jffg+araaoO" Jail posed health, fire safety and seismic risks. After several years' ■
» r >m ' • " arfj rnubnohbA of litigation, a settlement agreement was reached that resulted in
:; , i -^r-,.-s ^^ oorrsnfl ffrw dismissal of the plaintiffs action, so long as certain conditions kre
:•.;•■' '.[?.':& '^-^ te™ tomrtnoo met by the City. These conditions include (a) the construction ofia
!'•!■■■ ■'* •' *< r - .^O. [KKLSiJJS new jail facility: (h) the continuance of certain improvements made'
?»rf' '7J 1 o? ^'rhT? .y.nD t0 County Jail No. 3 between July. 1997 and the present; and
-' t " nort; r ora?h >d?_3ntjbif box improvements in the condin unty Jail No. 3 on an interim. ;
i V! :>- ■( •if.! J -• ■ [)'):t-i6n sd oJbasis, pending completion of a proposed new jail facility. The
settlement agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors in
grnrmO rftiw eonFbionfi nT .8 April f 1999 The City Attorney advised the Board of Supervisors onH /
i1 RonRnrbTO b9eoqoiq erft a t that time that, if the City decided not to proceed with fhe" I '
can Ijjqinnhq rnuauxErn Bril as construction of a new jail, the proposed settlement agreem>BT-
.I09(xnq od^wouid De sel aside and the lawsuit would proceed.
to IfivoiqqA "County Jail No. 3. located in San Bruno. San Mateo County, opened
r 'qcnq srfl 'io in 1932. Jail No. 3 housed a total capacity of 750 inmates until.
?io?.rvi3an2 under the settlement agreement described above, the jail
population was limited to no more than 551 inmates (the facility's
original design capacity 1 at any one time in order to reduce
overcrowding. Presently Jail No. 3 operates at the 551 inmate
capacity allowed under the settlement agreement.
There have been two attempts to obtain voter approval for a
General Obligation Bond issuance to fund a Jail No. 3 Replacement
Project. In 1992, Proposition B proposed a 5158,100.000 General
Obligation Bond issuance for the Jail No. 3 Replacement Project.
The proposition failed as it required a two-thirds vote for approval
and only received affirmative votes of 57.2 percent. In 1994.
Proposition A. requesting voter approval for a General Obligation
Bond issuance of S 196.000,000 also failed after receiving 54 percent
of the votes.
! <-. .;ig Board of Supervisors
aocua Budget Analyst
I 2
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
Selection of Proposed Contractor and Project Description
Attachment 1 to this report is a letter from Mr. Mark Primeau,
Director of the DPW explaining the selection process for the
proposed design-build/finance project contractor, Prison Realty
Trust.
As stated in Attachment 1, the Department of Public Works issued
a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the design-build/finance Jail
No. 3 Replacement Project in February, 1997. Five respondents to
the RFQ were "shortlisted" by an evaluation team consisting of
DPW and Sheriffs Department staff on the basis of their
qualifications and all five teams were approved by the Human
Rights Commission.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in August, 1998 to the
five firms found to be qualified by the RFQ process. Two proposals
were received; one from Turner Construction Management
Company, Inc. and a second from a team lead by Prison Realty
Trust (PRT) as developer, and including Morris Diesel
International Inc. (general contractor) and Kaplan McLaughlin
Diaz (architects). Two selection panels were convened, the first to
evaluate Technical/Administrative requirements including site,
landscape, building design, project schedule, quality control
program and MBEAVBE utilization. The second selection panel
evaluated proposed project costs, lease costs and other factors
related to financial risk or cost to the City. The selection panel that
evaluated Technical/Administrative requirements was comprised of
a DPW representative, a Sheriffs Department representative, and
three outside experts in the design/construction field, according to
Mr. Primeau. The selection panel evaluating proposed project costs
was comprised of the Mayor's Director of Public Finance, two
Deputy City Attorneys and two partners from the City's
independent Financial Advisor for the Jail No. 3 Replacement
Project (the firm of Stephens, McCarthy, Kuenzel and Caldwell,
Ltd.).
The team lead by PRT received the highest total scores from 10 out
of the 11 panelists on the two selection panels. The costs of the two
proposals were $185,000,000 for the Turner Construction
Management Company proposal and $158,500,000 for the PRT
proposal.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
3
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
After selection of the PRT team, negotiations began between the
contractor PRT and the City represented by the Sheriff, DPVV,
MOPF, the City Architect and the City Attorney. The initial project
scope called for over 400,000 square feet of construction including a
286,000 square foot jail housing building, and a 106,000 square foot
Administrative/Services building. As noted above, the low bid of
$158,500,000 in response to the initial Jail No. 3 Replacement
project RFP was submitted by PRT.
The Sheriff. DPVV and MOPF determined that both proposals
submitted for the proposed facility were too costly, and DPVV and
the City Architect entered into negotiations with PRT to reduce the
scope and price of the project. The reduced scope project now
provides for approximately '286,000 square feet of construction
including a 207,000 square foot jail housing building, and a 62,000
square foot A dminis trative/Services building. Both the original
project design and the reduced scope project design provide for a
total of 384 two-inmate cells for a total prisoner capacity of 768
compared to the existing maximum capacity of -Jail No. 3 of 750 and
the capacity permitted under the settlement agreement approved
by the Board of Supervisors in April of 1999 of 551. With these
changes, the reduced scope project has been estimated to require a
construction contract price of $115,000,000. which is $43,500,000 or
27.4 percent less than the low hid of $158,500,000.
Terms of the Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance would authorize the City Attorney, City
Architect. Mayor's Office of Public Finance, Sheriffs Department
and DPVV to complete negotiations with PRT and DPVV would be
authorized to enter into a negotiated contract with PRT, or its
successor company by merger or acquisition, for the design-
build/finance of the Jail No. 3 Replacement Project substantially in
accordance with the following ten
a. the total project cost of the contract with PRT for the design-
build portion of the project would not exceed $115,000,000; the
City's iii-house expenses for project management, construction
management, support services and contract expenditures for
demolition of the existing Jail would not exceed $17,200,000.
Therefore, the total PRT and Cifr for the Jail No. 3
1 If PRT's ownership is changed because of merger or acquisition, the successor company would not
be subject to separate legislative approval by the Board of Supervisors (See Comment 2).
Board of Supervisors
Bloc. ft Analyst
4
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
Replacement Project would not exceed $132,200,000. The
proposed total project cost would be subject to change as
described below. Attachment 2 to this report, supplied by Mr.
Primeau, provides supporting detail for the PRT project cost of
$115,000,000 and Attachment 3 provides supporting detail for
the City's project costs of $17,200,000. According to Ms. Moyer,
all funding for the total project cost of $132,200,000 will be
provided by proceeds from the issuance of Certificates of
Participation (COPs) as described below.
b. All construction contracts costing $500,000 or more, including at
least 80% of all labor, equipment, material, and supply
subcontract costs, would be competitively bid to at least three
qualified bidders for each subcontract bid package. Subcontracts
would be awarded by PRT with the review and approval of the
City (represented by the DPW project manager) based on a
weighted scale of cost, achievement of Human Rights
Commission goals and workforce availability.
The total Project Cost would be adjusted by the amount, if any,
that the subcontract bids differ from the estimates upon which
the proposed cost of $115,000,000 is based. An amendment to
the proposed ordinance submitted by the Director of Public
Works at the February 23, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee
meeting stipulates that the $115,000,000 Project Cost is now
defined as a "not-to-exceed" amount. (See Comment 3.)
c. PRT would be responsible for providing all design and
construction services necessary for receipt of an occupancy
permit for a facility meeting or exceeding all design and
specification requirements, all industry standards and all
applicable codes and regulations.
The Project would be required to meet the program needs
identified by the Sheriff and -agreed upon between the two
parties, including but not limited to the following:
• 384 cells each accommodating two prisoners,
• kitchen and eating facilities,
• medical and administration facilities and support services.
• PRT would provide all design consultants necessary for the
design and construction and administration services through
permitted occupancy and final project closeout. DPW would
reserve the right to provide design or construction services
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
5
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
through its own forces, in which case there would be an
equitable reduction in fees paid to PRT for the project in order
to reduce the total project costs to the City.
d. The proposed cost of $115,000,000 for the design-build portion of
the project includes estimated amounts to be paid by PRT to its
general contractor and design team, which amount would be
adjusted after actual bids have been received on the
subcontractor bid packages. The amount to be paid by PRT to its
general contractor for supervision, overhead and profit, and to
its architect for all design services as described herein,
collectively, would be no more than 25% of the actual cost of
construction of the Project. The total cost for the design-build
portion of the Project would be adjusted accordingly from the
proposed cost of $115,000,000.
e. PRT would produce a bid package schedule which minimizes the
construction duration. It is estimated that construction would
begin upon the issuance of a notice to proceed by the DPW and
the facility would become operational in approximately 38
months.
f. PRT would, at the City's discretion, re-design and re-bid
subcontractor bid packages if the low bid for any subcontractor
bid package exceeds the budgeted amount. The cost of re-design
would be paid 50% by PRT and 50% from the re-designed bid
package price.
g. PRT would assume responsibility for all change orders which do
not arise from DPW requested changes to the Project's program.
h. PRT would assume responsibility for on-budget, on-schedule
delivery of the Project regardless of its contractual agreements
with parties other than the City. The Project would be
completed within 38 months after the City issues the Project's
notice to proceed.
PRT would assist the City in issuing Certificates Of
Participation (COPs) to finance the costs of the Project, subject
to separate Board of Supervisors approval. The proposed
ordinance states that the maximum principal amount of COPs
to finance the costs of the project is not expected to exceed
$166,000,000. However. Ms. Mover states that the current
estimated COPs issuance principal amount is now $177,195,000
(See Project Financing, described below). COPs proceeds would
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
6
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
finance the contract with PRT that is the subject of this
ordinance, as well as the demolition of the existing Jail, which is
contemplated to be carried out later under a separate contract.
(Demolition of the existing Jail, at an estimated cost of
$3,250,000 is part of the City's anticipated Project cost of
$17,200,000. See Comment 5.)
If the City Architect and Director of DPW determined that they
are unable successfully to conclude negotiations with PRT on
terms that are in the best interest of the City, then the City
Architect and Director of DPW are authorized to terminate
negotiations with PRT and to enter into negotiations with the
second-ranked proposer (Turner Construction Management
Company) for a contract in substantial conformance with the
provisions set forth herein. If such negotiations are not fruitful,
then the City Architect and the Director of DPW are authorized
to terminate negotiations with the second-ranked proposer and
enter into negotiations with any other party whom they
determine would offer the City the best opportunity to
successfully negotiate a contract in substantial conformance
with the provisions set forth herein (See Comment 6).
According to the proposed ordinance, the competitive bidding
requirements and design-build procedural requirements of
Administrative Code Chapter 6 shall not apply to this Project,
and any requirement for the City to accept a substitute in place
of specified material and/or equipment is waived. (See Comment
4 below). The proposed ordinance also states that art
enrichment allocation requirement of the Administrative Code
Chapter 3 does not apply to this project.
Final Environmental Impact Report
A Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Jail No. 3
Replacement project was approved by the Planning Commission in
July of 1998.
The FEIR as approved by the Planning Commission requires
measures to mitigate significant effects on the environment. Such
mitigation measures fall within the categories of transportation
(traffic control), noise, air quality, utilities and public services, '
biological resources, hydrology and water quality, hazardous
materials and cultural resources. Most requirements of the
mitigation measures would be met by the proposed construction
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
contractor within the proposed PRT cost of $115,000,000. DPW
would be responsible for some requirements of the mitigation
measures, as would the Sheriffs Department. The costs of meeting
such mitigation measures during the proposed construction project
would be paid from the City's $17,200,000 portion of the project as
outlined in Attachment 3. Such costs include:
Site hazardous materials and
environmental issues monitoring $1,831,363
Demolition hazardous materials mitigation 1,500,000
Sheriffs Department costs 2 250.000
Total Mitigation Measures $3,581,363
Project Financing
As noted previously, the anticipated total project cost for the Jail
No. 3 Replacement Project, including $115,000,000 for the PRT
contract and $17,200,000 for City costs, is $132,200,000
previously noted, all project costs will be funded from the net
proceeds of an issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs) in
the anticipated amount of $177,195,000 (the current estimate,
which is $11,195,000 more than the $166,000,000 COPs principal
amount specified in the proposed ordinance).
The use of Certificates of Participation (COPs) is a method of
financing that provides long term funding through a lease or
installment sales agreement. COPs represent proportionate
interests in the lease of the Jail No. 3 Replacement Project
property, which are sold to investors. The investors would receive a
return on their investment through annual lease payments made
by the City for the land and building. The City would assign its
rights to purchase the land, together with the building thereon, to a
financial institution, as trustee, and lease the land and building
back from the financial institution at an annual amount sufficient
to service the debt on the COPs purchased by the investors. At the
end of the term (currently anticipated to be 30 years), the trustee
would transfer fee title to the land and building back to the City.
The COPs method of financing is proposed because previous
attempts to achieve voter approval of General Obligation Bonds to
finance the Jail No. 3 Replacement Project in 1992 and 1994 have
2 Sheriffs costs include community notification, additional security, vehicle and traffic control, and
emergency coordination and response plans.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
8
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
failed. COPs financing is a less economical method of financing
compared to the use of General Obligation Bonds. Interest rates are
higher for COPs than General Obligation Bonds, resulting in higher
debt service requirements. Also, because the City is forbidden by
law from paying lease payments prior to completion of the
construction project for Jail No. 3, capitalized interest payments on
the COPs during the period of construction requires a larger debt
issuance than would be necessary with General Obligation Bonds.
Based on an anticipated interest rates of 6.6 percent for a General
Obligation Bond and anticipated interest rates of 7 percent for a
COP issuance, the Mayor's Office of Public Finance estimates that
the cost of this project will be $190,611,785 more using the COPs
than if General Obligation Bonds were available to finance the
Project 3 . This difference in total cost is due to the higher interest
rates for COPs and the need to fund capitalized interest costs
during the period of construction using COPs financing instead of a
General Obligation Bond financing.
Ms. Moyer provides the following current estimate of sources and
uses for the funding of the proposed project and related financing
costs.
Sources of Funds
Certificates of Participation Proceeds $ 177,195,000
Interest earnings 13.906.133
Total Sources $191,101,133
Uses of Funds
COPs issuance costs $ 6,342,094
Bond Insurance 3,489,791
Capitalized Interest 4 34,784,555
Debt Service Reserve Fund , 14,284,693
PRT Contract 115,000,000
City Project Costs 17.200.000
Total Uses $ 191,101,133
3 The estimate for a comparable General Obligation Bond financing assumes a par amount of $129.8
million at 6.6 percent, an average annual payment of $10,341,723 (including use of a debt service
reserve for the final payments) and gross debt service of $237,859,645 over 23 years.
1 During the construction of the project, the City cannot make lease payments on the new facility
until the City has beneficial use of the new Jail. Therefore, interest payments during the period of
construction must be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the COPs.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
9
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
Ms. Moyer estimates that if the COPs were issued today, the
interest rate on the debt would be six percent. However, Ms. Moyer
anticipates that interest rates may rise by approximately one
percent before issuance of the COPs. Based on the assumed
increase in interest rates to seven percent, the annual lease
payments by the City to pay debt service on the COPs will be
approximately $14,282,381 for a period of 30 years for total lease
payments of $428,471,430. Once the debt has been fuhy repaid by
the City through its annual lease payments, the City will take full
ownership of the Jail from PRT. The life expectancy of the new Jail
facility is expected to be 50 years.
Lease payments of $14,282,381 annually, totaling $428,471,430
over the 30 term of the debt, to pay debt service on the COPs will be
a General Fund expenditure.
Comments: 1. If this proposed ordinance is approved by the Board of
Supervisors, Board of Supervisors approval of future legislation will
be required prior to the actual start-up of the Jail No. 3
Replacement Project. First, legislation authorizing the issuance of
Certificates of Participation in the currently anticipated amount of
$177,195,000 (subject to negotiation with Bond insurers and
underwriters, and review by rating agencies) will be submitted to
the Board of Supervisors. Second, proceeds from the sale of COPs
will be subject to separate appropriation approval by the Board of
Supervisors.
2, As previously mentioned, if PRT's ownership is changed because
of merger or acquisition, the successor company would not be
subject to separate legislative approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Accordingly, and as further explained in Comment 6 below, the
Budget Analyst recommends that the ordinance be amended so that
the final negotiated contract with PRT, or its successor company, or
any other company, be subject to final approval by the Board of
Supervisors
3. As noted above, an amendment to the proposed ordinance
submitted by the Director of Public Works at the February 23, 2000
Finance and Labor Committee meeting stipulates that the
$115,000,000 Project Cost is now defined as a "not-to-exceed"
amount. Therefore, the total Project Cost for construction
performed by PRT can only decrease, depending on the outcome of
competitive bids for subcontracts costing $500,000 or more, but
cannot increase as a result of such competitive bids.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
10
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
4. According to Mr. Randall Parent of the City Attorney's Office,
the section of the proposed ordinance that waives competitive
bidding requirements and design-build procedural requirements of
Administrative Code Chapter 6 is necessary because of the lengthy
period that has elapsed during negotiations between
representatives of the City and PRT and, more importantly, the
significant change in the scope of the work that resulted from the
negotiations. The RFP sought proposals for a jail project that is
significantly different from the project now proposed. According to
Mr. Parent, without this ordinance, the City would need to reject all
proposals and issue a new RFP in order to comply with the design-
build requirements of Chapter 6. Mr. Parent adds that it would not
be in the best interests ot the City to re-bid the project in light of
the significant amount of work invested in re-designing the project
and the time pressures facing the City to meet the terms of the
Jones settlement agreement. Accordingly, the City Attorney has
advised DPW and the Sheriff to submit this separate ordinance to
the Board of Supervisors for approval of the process used to
negotiate this design-build project, which requires waiving the
competitive bidding requirements and design-build procedural
requirements of Administrative Code Chapter 6.
5. As previously mentioned, the proposed ordinance specifies that
COP proceeds would finance the contract with PRT that is the
subject of this ordinance, as well as the demolition of the existing
Jail, which is required to be carried out later under a separate
contract. However, the COPs proceeds are expected to fund both the
PRT contract in the anticipated amount of $115,000,000 and all
City costs in the anticipated amount of $17,200,000, including
demolition of the existing Jail at a cost of $3,250,000. Therefore the
proposed ordinance should be amended in accordance with
Recommendation 2 below so that the proposed ordinance states
that all project costs will be funded /rom COP proceeds.
6. Because the Board of Supervisors would not be required to
approve the final contract for construction of the proposed project
due to the waiver of Administrative Code Chapter 6, the Budget
Analyst recommends that the proposed ordinance be amended to
provide for specific Board of Supervisors approval of the final
contract agreement with the design-build/finance contractor.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
11
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
7. The Budget Analyst notes that several new County Jails built in
California have been partially justified by reduced operational costs
for the new, more efficient facilities, including Los Angeles County,
San Diego County and Santa Clara County. Also, the Sheriffs
budget currently includes over $2,800,000 in annual operating
expenses attributable to the lawsuit against the City and the
resulting settlement agreement concerning the operation of the
current Jail No. 3. However, Attachment 4 to this report is a letter
from Ms. Jean Mariani. Budget and Program Manager of the
Sheriffs Department that states that the Sheriff anticipates no
operational savings would be available to offset the estimated
$14,282,381 in annual lease payments to pay off the COPs for the
new Jail. According to Ms. Mariani, it is the opinion of the Sheriff
that the new facility must be operated with substantially the same
level of staffing as the current Jail No. 3, but that the cost per
inmate housed in the new facility will decrease because the total
Jail population capacity will increase from the current level of 551
inmates to a capacity of 768 inmates.
8. At the request of the Finance and Labor Committee, the Mayor's
Director of Public Finance is preparing alternative financing
scenarios for presentation to the Committee at is meeting of March
1, 2000. However, as of the writing of this report, the current
estimate for the maximum principal amount of COPs to finance the
costs of the project is $177,195,000 instead of $166,000,000 as
specified in the proposed ordinance. Consequently, the Budget
Analyst recommends that the proposed ordinance be amended to
reflect the revised maximum principal amount of the anticipated
COPs issuance. (See Recommendation 3.)
9. The Finance and Labor Committee has also requested further
details on the provisions to be included in the final contract with
PRT. According to Mr. Primeau. the DPVV intends to include
appropriate provisions for liquidated damages and penalty clauses
in order to assure that work will be performed in a timely manner
according to agreed upon specifications. However, such details have
not been fully discussed and finalized at this time.
Mr. Primeau also notes however, that agreement on a guaranteed
maximum contract cost of $115,000,000 protects the City against
potential construction cost overruns.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
\-2
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
10. Finally, the Finance and Labor Committee has requested a
further examination of projected operating costs for the new Jail in
order to identify potential savings that could contribute to the
payment of debt service for the construction financing. The Sheriff
continues to maintain that his projection of operating costs at the
new facility is substantially the same as current operating costs at
Jail No. 3.
The Budget Analyst notes however, that facilities maintenance
expenditures for Jail No. 3, amounting to $525,000 annually,
should become minimal once the new Jail is operational. Also, the
need for staffing will largely depend on the future inmate
population for the City's jail system as a whole. If, for example, the
new Jail were to operate with a population of approximately 600
inmates, or 49 inmates more than the current maximum population
of 551, the annual operating costs could be reduced by
approximately $1,100,000 due to reduced staffing requirements
based on a review of the Sheriffs Department's detailed staffing
projections. The Sheriff notes however, that currently, between 550
and 600 sentenced individuals participate in Jail Alternative
programs. Future changes to court policies or future legislation,
could decrease that number and therefore increase the number of
inmates that must be housed.
The Budget Analyst acknowledges that future Jail operating costs
will depend on the number of inmates that must be housed as well
as the operating requirements of a new jail facility. Therefore, a
detailed, independent review of such operating requirements should
be performed prior to the completion of the Jail No. 3 Replacement
Project.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
13
Memo to Finance Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comments 2 and 6 above, amend the
proposed ordinance to require that the final contract agreement for
the design-build/finance Jail No. 3 Replacement Project, including
any contact with a successor company to PRT or any other design-
build contractor, shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for
approval.
2. In accordance with Comment 5 above, amend Section 3 of the
contract (page 5, lines 18 through 21) to read as follows:
"Consistent with the Project analyzed in the FEIR and the
Addendum, the Board intends that the Certificates of Participation
will finance the design-build portion of the Project under the
contract with PRT, for all project costs in the anticipated amount of
$115.000,000, that is the subject of this ordinance, as well as all
Citv Project costs in the anticipated amount of $17.200.000
including the demolition of the existing Jail, which is contemplated
to be carried out later under a separate contract.
3. In accordance with Comment 8 above, amend page 5, fine 18 of
the proposed ordinance to substitute $177,195,000 for $166,000,000
as the maximum principal amount of COPs to finance the costs of
the project.
1 Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, and approval
of the proposed resolution are policy matters for the Board of
Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
14
City and County of San Francisco
Attachment 1
Page 1 ot 3
(415)554-6920
FAX (415) 554-6944
http://www.sfdpw.com
Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor
Mark A. Primeau, Architect, AIA, Director
Department of Public Works
Office of the Director
City Hall. Room 348
1 Dr. Carlton B. Gcodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4645
February 8. 2000
Mr. Ken Bruce
Budget Analyst Office
1390 Market Street
San Francisco, CA
Re: San Bruno County Jail No. 3 Replacement Project
Dear Mr. Bruce: |C&A/-
Ken, I am following up on our discussion yesterday regarding information on the Jail project.
Attached to this memo are cost matrices for (1) MDI project implementation costs totaling SI 15
million and (2) City project costs totaling SI 7.2 million.
BACKGROUND
County Jail No. 3 Replacement Project
Design Build Finance Team Selection Process
Phase I: Issuance of the Request for Qualifications and the Selection of a "Shortlist":
On February 27, 1997, the Department of Public Works issued a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) to solicit Design Build Lease teams interested in providing design, construction and
financing services for a replacement facility for County Jail No. 3 in San Mateo County. This
RFQ set forth goals for the project and defined the team selection process. General Contractors.
Architectural or Architectural/Engineering ( AE) firms demonstrating expertise in the design and
construction of correctional facilities and the ability to meet schedule and budget requirements
were encouraged to apply. Financing plans were to includes description of the method of
financing, guarantee provisions and an explanation of potential financial risks to the City and
County of San Francisco.
On March 10. 1997, an addendum to this RFQ was issued detailing the requirements of the
Human Rights Commission MBE. WBE subconsultant goals for the A E team. MBE goals were
set at 20% and WBE goals at 7%. Two Orientation Conferences and a Site Visit were held prior
to the receipt of qualification packages.
■IMPROVING THE GUALIT/ Of LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO" We are devested mar.iduals committed to teamwork, customer
service and continuous imcro'/ement in partnershio with the community
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Ken Bruce
2/08/2000
Page 2
On March 27, 1997, responses were received from six Design Build Finance teams. These
packages were reviewed by a selection panel comprising of staff of the Sheriffs Department.
DPW, the City Attorney's Office, the Mayor's Office of Public Finance and 'he City Architect
from the City of Oakland. Key selection criteria included experience in the design build project
delivery method, team qualifications, management ability and specific experience in the design
and construction of projects similar in size and complexity. Oral presentations were held with all
six teams.
Five teams were shortlisted on the basis of qualifications and all five teams were approved bv
HRC.
Phase II: Issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP)
In August 199S, the Project Criteria Package detailing Design and Finance requirements was
distributed to the five shortlisted teams. Prior to this, the Design Build Finance ordinance was
passed by the Board of Supervisors and the EIR for the project was certified. A presentation on
financial issues was held by the City on September 2. 1998.
Receipt of Proposal and Selection Process
On December 7, 1998, proposals were submitted by two Design Build Lease teams:
1. Turner Construction Company Inc. DMJM (TCC1 DMJM). and
2. Prison Realty Trust/Morse Diesel Intl. Inc. Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (PRT TvlDI KMD).
Two selection panels were convened to independently evaluate the proposals. One panel
reviewed Technical and Administrative requirements for which a total of SO points was
allocated. This review covered Site. Landscape. Building Design. Project Schedule Quality
Control Program and MBEAVBE utilization.
The second panel evaluated the Cost of Proposal for which,* total of 120 points was allocated.
Selection criteria included Project costs. Lease costs and other factors relating to risk or cost to
CCSF.
The team of PRT MDI KMD received higher scores from 10 out of the 1 1 panelists. The team
was therefore designated the Highest Ranked Proposer. In February 1999. negotiations
commenced with this team.
Attachment 1
. ., r, Page 3 ot 3
Mr. Ken Bruce
Z'8/00
Page 3
COST SAVINGS
During the negotiation, the City team ( DPW, City Attorney. City Architect, Sheriff. Mayor's Office)
focused on reducing the cost of the project. Several cost saving elements were achieved without
negatively effecting the integrity of the Sheriffs program or operational use of the facility. The overall
size of the facility was reduced to 280.000 sq. ft from approximately 400,000 sq. ft.This was
accomplished by fine tuning the program to change the function of the kitchen from a system wide
service to an on-site service facility. Other cost saving elements included a direct adjacency of the
recreation area to the housing pods thereby eliminating the need for unnecessary circulation space and
providing for greater control and supervision by Deputies. The circular geometry of the Housing pods was
developed to allow for greater visual access into the holding cells. The tighter configuration also reduced
the area of structure, foundation walls and footings, resulting in less construction costs.
DESIGN TEAM GOALS
The design team M/WBEgoals for the project are 20% and 7% respectively. Referring to attachment ~3
the design team reflects HRC participation of 46.6 Vo, MBE 39%, and WBE 7.6%.
ADDITIONAL COST CONTROL PROTECTIONS
The Ordinance was carefully developed to provide the City with three primary cost control mechanisms:
competitive subcontracting bids over S500,000; a re-design/re-bid procedure to contain subcontracting
costs; and strict language prohibiting material/product substitutions.
Competitive bidding of critical building component such as the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, security,
fire/life safety, and structural systems represent 80% of the estimated construction cost> The City team
selected the S500.000 threshold as a method to focus attention on the major divisions of workscope of the
project.
The DPW Project Manager will work closely with the contractor, Human Rights Commission, Sherriff s
Department , Mayor's Office, and City Attorney in the preparation of subcontract bid packages and
bidding process. Once the lowest responsive subcontractor's bid is determined, the Project Manager will
recommend acceptance of the lowest responsive bid to the City Engineer. A contract modification
authorized by the Director of Public Works will be issued to the Developer. Prison Realty Trust, and it
will serve as the award of contract to the subcontractors.
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Upon approval of the Ordinance by the Board of Supervisors, a 36 month schedule is anticipated after a
contract is negotiated and a notice to proceed is issued by the Director of Public Works.
Sincerelv,
Director of Public
'IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork, customer
ser/ice and continuous improvement m partnership with the con' ■
Attachment 2
Morse Diesel
^INTERNATIONAL, I N C. f~
«■ CONSTRUCTION/CONSULTING ^
County Jail #3
Project Cost Estimate
2/8/2000
Description
MDI Estimate
Subcontractors
Division 2 - Sitework 8.094.328
Division 3 - Foundations 12.370.641
Division 4 - Masonry 4,130,446
Division 5 - Metals 3,888.037
Division 6 - Wood & Plastic
1,261.705
Division 7 - Thermo/Moisture Protection
2.020.526
Division 8 - Doors & Windows
9.109.557
Division 9 - Finishes
4.437.041
Division 10 - Specialties
1.900.664
Division 11 - Equipment
2.145.734
Division 12 - Furnishings
25.420
Division 1 3 - Special Construction (ind. Design cost for Sec. Eec. & SpnnWers)
5.286.2S3
Division 14 - Conveying Systems
973.709
Division 15 - Mechanical (ind. Design cost for Mechanical Systems)
15.900,898
Division 16 - Electrical (inci. Design cost fcr Eectncal Systems)
13.739.702
Subtotal
536,441,522
Subcontractor Bonds
808.473
Total Subcontractors Cost
$36,250,000
Design
KMD Design 7.000.0CC
Total Design Cost 57,000,000
Bonds/Insurance/Permits
MDI Bond 1.050.000
Permits
525.000
Builders Risk Insurance
222.348
Professional Liability Insurance
199.500
General Liability Insurance 1,029.500
Gross Receiot Tax 348,500
Total Bonds/lnsurance/Permlts 53,382.843
MDI
General Conditions/Fee 18,267,152
Total MDI Cost/Fee $18,367,152
Total 5115,000,000
Attachment 3
San Bruno Jail Replacement - City Costs
Peer Review (Estimated): Provide design review during planning/design phase
to insure compliance with program requirements. This task will be performed by
consultants with expertise in prison design.
5500,000
Testing, Inspection & Contract Administration:
Materials Testing (Estimated): Provide testing of materials such as soils, concrete,
reinforcing steel, welding and other testing specified in the contract.
Inspection: Provide inspection and construction administration services to insure
work is in compliance with contract documents.
Class
5208
Civil Engineer
5206
Associate Engineer
5204
Assistant Engineer
5238
Assoc. Elect. Engr
5254
Assoc. Mech. Engr
5268
Architect
6348
Electrical Inspector
6342
Plumbing Inspector
1446
Secretary II
Cost/Hour
# of Hrs
Subtotal
105.05
6,500
682,825
90.75
6,000
544,500
77.55
5,000
387,750
90.75
3,500
317,625
90.75
3,500
317,625
106.70
4,000
426,800
96.11
3,750
360,422
96.11
3,750
360,422
59.40
6,250
371,250
5350,000
53,769,219
3 Site Hazardous Materials Mitigation & Environ. Issues Monitoring (Estimated):
5500,000
4 Project Management: Provide project management and technical support services
to insure project is completed on schedule and within budget.
Class Cost/Hour # of Hrs Subtotal
5508 Project Manager IV
5504 Project Manager II
152.90 7,000
112.75 6,750
1,070,300
761 ,063
51,531,353
5 Construction Management (As Needed Scheduling & Estimating):
S500.C00
6 Regulatory fund & City Contingency:
So, 000.000
7 Demolition:
Hazardous Materials Mitigation (Estimated)
Demo Existing County Jail
1,750,000
1,500,000
S3, 250,000
8 Other C'<tv Departments:
City Attorney's Office
Sheriff's Depanment
250,000
250,000
Total
S500.000
517,200.531
19
City and County of San Francisco /$
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
Attachrent A
Fage lot 4
£\ Michael Hennessc
SHERIFF
415 - 554 - 7225
February 10, 2000
Ref.: BPM 00-008
Mr. Ken Bruce
Budget Analyst's Office
1390 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Ken:
This letter responds to two issues you raised in your review of the
proposed new jail at San Bruno. I have discussed your questions with
the Sheriff and his position is as follows:
First, you inquired as to whether the proposed capacity of the new jail
(768 beds compared to the current 550 beds in County Jail #3) will
create "excess capacity" and therefore possible operational savings by
allowing us to close other facilities in whole or part.
Currently, the San Francisco County jails do not have sufficient
capacity to house all the prisoners committed to custody. Not only are
there approximately 100 persons sleeping on the jail floors today, but
there are over 600 convicted prisoners not in-jail custody at all,
serving sentences in jail alternative programs. The ability to house
prisoners committed to the Sheriff's custody will be enhanced by the
new jail.
Additionally, it is generally less safe to operate a jail at 100 percent
capacity. National standards suggest that at 80 percent capacity, a jail
can more safely house classes of prisoners who must be separated for
safety purposes.
ROOM J:-
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODIE
T :>'_-\CE
lN CISCO. c-
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 4
Ken Bruce
Budget Analyst's Office
February 10, 2000
Page 2
This new facility will not open for more than three years. Although no
one can predict the future, the accompanying graph shows that the
San Francisco County jail population has consistently grown over the
past several decades. Using any available data, one would have to
conclude that the jail population will continue to grow over the next
three years.
Second, you questioned whether there would be potential operational
savings from a modern jail facility. You point to Santa Clara, Los
Angeles, and San Diego counties, which identified savings achievable
by reduced staffing in their new jail facilities.
Our preliminary staffing analysis determined that we might be able to
operate the new facility, which will house 218 or 40 percent more
prisoners than the existing jail, without a significant increase in
staffing. The existing CJ#3 is a linear jail; the new facility is a direct
supervision jail. There is generally limited staff interaction with
prisoners in linear jails; direct supervision jails are designed to
promote a much higher level of interaction, which, due to its nature
and intensity, requires more staff to properly and safely manage such
housing.
Much of the savings in new jail construction is due to the philosophy of
taking all "goods and services" to the prisoners in their housing units.
This reduces the number of movement deputies, as well as the need
for fixed posts in program, visiting, and medical areas. Each housing
unit is built to include classrooms, medical offices, and visiting rooms.
The housing units in San Francisco's proposed new jail facility are not.
There is, in fact, significant movement required to manage the
prisoners in the new facility.
As originally designed, the new facility would have included a system-
wide kitchen which would have resulted in savings by cutting duplicate
functions in other San Francisco County jails. To reduce construction
costs, this was eliminated in the proposed design, which then
eliminated any potential savings from the proposed functional
consolidation.
?i
Attachment U
Page 3 ot 4
Ken Bruce
Budget Analyst's Office
February 10, 2000
Page 3
Non-personnel savings are also difficult to quantify, because the
existing jail facility is so old and dilapidated, while the proposed new
facility will be built to current building, electrical and mechanical
codes. The new facility will include many more electrical and electronic
devices and will also have a real heating, fire suppression, smoke
removal, ventilation, and air exchange system. These could increase
utility costs beyond our current spending rate. We do, however, expect
to reduce our duct tape expenditures significantly.
I hope this addresses your concerns in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jean Mariani
Budget & Program Manager
Enclosure
22
Attachment 4
Page 4 of 4
a
o
a.
'ra
-3
>l
C
3
O
o
o
o
tfl
"6
c
c
ra
C/3
uoi}E|ndod ^neq a6ej3AV
23
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 11-00-0275
Department:
Item:
Description:
Health Services System (HSS)
Department of Human Resources (DHR)
Resolution establishing the monthly contribution amount
to be made to the Health Services Trust Fund by the City
and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified
School District, and the San Francisco Community
College District for Fiscal Year 2000-2001.
The proposed resolution would establish the dollar
amount of the employer's contribution to be made to the
Health Service Trust Fund by the City and County of San
Francisco (City), the San Francisco Unified School
District (SFUSD), and the San Francisco Communitv
College District (SFCCD) for FY 2000-2001.
The Health Services Board and the City and County
Health Service System, as required by Charter Sections
\s 123 and A8.428, have surveyed the ten most populous
counties in the State (excluding San Francisco) to
determine the average dollar contribution made by these
counties toward each employee's medical care insurance
(not including dental and optical care insurance).
In accordance with the Charter, this resolution would
establish the FY 2000-2001 monthly contribution rate for
health care insurance to be paid by the City, the SFUSD,
and the SFCCD, at $192.23 per month, or $2,306.76
annually, for each eligible, active employee, based on the
survey results of the average payment made by the ten
most populous counties in California, excluding San
Francisco, as shown in the table on the following page in
order of most to least populous county:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Average Contributed
County Monthly Amount
Los Angeles $217.15
San Diego 153.84
Orange 255.24
Santa Clara 190.36
San Bernadino 176.86
Riverside 183.69
Alameda 186.87
Sacramento $198.12
Contra Costa 174.53
Fresno 185.67
Total $1,922.33
According to HSS, the ten-county survey for FY 2000-
2001 indicates tnat the average employer contribution of
the ten most populous counties in California (excluding
San Francisco) is $192.23 per month, or $2,306.76
annually, per employee, not including dental and optical
care insurance. The City's current FY 1999-2000
contribution is $180.85 monthly or $2,170.20 annually,
per employee. The proposed resolution would establish
$192.23 as the monthly per employee contribution to be
made in FY 2000-2001 by the City. SFUSD, and SFCCD
for the health insurance costs of their employees. The
proposed monthly rate of $192.23 for FY 2000-2001
represents an increase of $11.38 per month or
approximately 6.3 percent from the $180.85 monthly rate
currently contributed in FY' 1999-2000.
Comments: 1. The City's budget preparation system used by the
Controller to compile the City's annual budget calculates
the Health Service System costs for all funded positions.
Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office informs that
the calculated cost of the increase in contributions for FY
2000-2001 is $2,978,846 for General Fund supported
positions and $3,863,650 for all funded positions in the
City's budget.
2. As previously noted, the City's contribution for health
care coverage in FY 2000-2001 is equal to the average
contribution of the ten most populous counties in
California, excluding San Francisco, as determined by an
HSS survey taken in January 2000. Given that the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
surveyed counties may subsequently increase or decrease
their actual contributions for FY 2000-2001, San
Francisco's contribution may, in fact, be greater or less
than the actual average contributions to be provided by
the ten counties in FY 2000-2001. However, because HSS
is required by the Charter to collect the comparative data
in January of each year, HSS is not able to set its FY
2000-2001 rates based on the final FY" 2000-2001 rates of
the other ten surveyed counties.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
cc: Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Matthew Hymel
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 10 - File 00-0268
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Lessee:
Airport
Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub
Principal Retail Concession lease between Host
International, Inc. and the City and County of San
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport
Commission.
North Terminal Hub of the Airport
Concession space for a specialty store and a
newsstand (See Deocription Section below)
City and County of San Francisco through the
Airport Commission
Host International
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by
Host International
to the Airport:
A total of 4,984 square feet at two locations in the
Aii-port's North Terminal Hub, consisting of 3,784
square feet for a specialty store and 1,200 square feet
for a newsstand. The total rental revenues to be paid
by Host International to the Airport based on the
Minimum Annual Guarantee would be
approximately $42.50 per square foot per month, or
$212,500 per month ($2,550,000 annually).
Annual Rental Revenues
Payable by
Host International
to the Airport:
The proposed lease would require Host International
to pay the Airport the greater of a Minimum Annual
Guarantee (MAG) of $2,550,000 for each year of the
five year lease term, or a percentage of gross
revenues realized by Host International. According
to the lease, the annual percentage of gross revenues
is 12% for the first $500,000. 14% between $500,000
and $1,000,000, and 16% for all gross revenues in
excess of $1,000,000. The terms of the proposed lease
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
are similar to the terms of concession leases
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors for
the Airport. The subject lease also provides for
annual increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee
based on increases in the U.S. Department of Labor
Department Store Inventory Price Index-Soft Goods. 1
Term of Lease:
The proposed lease is scheduled to commence in
December of 2000, upon completion of the required
renovation work by Host International. The lease
would be for a five-year period, terminating in
December of 200".
The five-year lease term begins on the Rent
Commencement Date, defined in the lease as the
first day both spaces covered by the subject lease are
fully operational. According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the
Airport, the specialty store is expected to be
operational by June 10, 2000. However, the
newsstand is not expected to be operational until
December of 2000 due to the North Terminal/Thumb
Expansion. Ms Ricasa advises that prior to
completion of the newsstand and the Rent
Commencement Date, expected in December of 2000,
Host International will pay to the Airport a prorated
rent based on th* ;uare feet for the operating
specialty store (the total 4,984 square feet covered by
the subject lease less the 1,200 square feet for the
newsstand).
Right of Renewal:
None
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor: The Lessee will pay for the costs of all utilities and
janitorial services.
Description:
The proposed resolution would approve a concession
lease for Host International to operate one specialty
store and one newsstand in the North Terminal Hub
of the Airport. L'nder the terms of the subject lease,
1 According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the Airport, soft goods are defined as retail goods such a
toys, sunglasses, and books. The Airport has determined that this price index is the most
appropriate one to applv to leases for Airport concessions.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Host International has identified the following five
retail "concepts" to be sold in the specialty store: (1)
Souvenir/Gift Items; (2) High-End Retail; (3) Bay
Area-Northern California Specialty Items; (4)
Museum-Related Products; and (5) Aviation-Related
Products.
The proposed lease would require Host International
to sell the following at the newsstand: local, daily
and out-of-town newspapers; 200 separately
displayed periodicals and magazines; 300 separately
displayed hardback and paperback books, plus
candy, tobacco, health aids, and souvenir items.
Host International would directly operate the first 3
of the 5 concepts listed above for the specialty store
and all of the newsstand, totaling 3,488 square feet,
or 70 percent of the total 4,984 square feet covered
by the subject lease. Host International would
sublease operation of the two remaining concepts in
the specialty store to two Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBEs): 1-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun
Shade Holding Corporation. The total 1,496 square
feet sub-leased by the DBE companies would be
approximately 30 percent of the total 4,984 square
footage covered by the lease.
The following table identifies the two retail spaces
covered by the subject lease, the five concepts for the
specialty store, the types of goods sold by each
business, and the square footage occupied by each
business.
Concession
Operator
Concept
Sq. Feet
Specialty
Store
Host
Souvenir / Gift Items
2,288
High-End Retail
Bay Area & Northern
California Items
1-5 Concessions
Aviation Products
748
Sun Shade | Museum Products
748
Total Sq. Ft for Specialty Store
3,784
Newsstand
Host Newsstand
1,200
Total Square Feet for Lease
4,984
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Tenet
Improvements:
Host International would be required to invest a
minimum of $150 per square foot to renovate the
subject lease space, or a total of $747,600 for the
4,984 square feet covered by the subject lease.
Under the terms of the proposed lease, Host
International would have the option to request
Airport approval for two temporary facilities to sell
merchandise during such renovations, estimated to
take 90 days. During such time. Host would pay the
Airport a percentage rent of 20 percent of gross
revenues. In addition, Ms. Ri ites that the
Airport plans to give Host International permission
to operate a temporary facility to sell newsstand
merchandise during the period that the North
Terminal Hub/Thumb Expansion delays the turnover
of space to Host International. Host International
will pay to the Airport 20 percent of gross revenues
earned from the temporary newsstand facility.
Comment:
According to Ms. Ricasa, on September 21. 1999 the
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 60 firms for the
subject concession lease, as stated in the Attachment
to this report, provided by the Airport. Subsequently,
on December 21, 1999, the Airport Commission
adopted a resolution awarding the lease to Host
International, the highest responsive and qualified
bidder. The Attachment also contains a list of all
firms that submitted bids for this concession and
their Minimum Annual Guarantees.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment Pa^e 1 of
San Francisco International Airport
s O. Hex 2U3/
5or, fiar-osta C\ 9«12S
T »i 650. 7S<i 5C00
H« S3ii.794.3CS3
I55IOT
VIA FACSIMILE. (415) 252-0416
DATE: February 23, 2000
70: Emily Newman
Budget Analyst Office
FROM: Gigi Ricasa SX
Airport Concession Development and Management
1)11N1 , Subject: North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession Lease (the "Lease")
This Lease was developed based on the compatibility with passenger needs and
desires, current marketing and retaii trends, demographics of the traveling public,
the economy, the existing concession the surrounding area and proposals received
from the community or retail industry.
Standard Marketing Procedure foranv Concession Oocortunftv
After Airport Commission approves staff to conduct a pre-bid/proposal conference,
Concession Development and Management ("CDM") staff mails a letter of interest
to a mailing list that has been generated by CDM that relates to the concept of the
concession opportunity. The interested parties who respond to the letter of interest
are placed on a more specified mail list. The specified mail list receives copies of
pre-bids and bid documents. For this Lease, the draft Request for Qualification and
Proposal and Bid ("RFQ/P and Bid") Documents and the final RFQ/P/ and Bid
Documents were mailed to approximately 60 pecple who responded to the letter of
interest. There were 32 attendees at the public informational conference held in
August 1999.
Competitive Process
The competitive process used for this Lease was a proposal and a bid process.
Interested parties were each required to submit a proposal, which requires for four
to five retail concepts in the bigger space and a newsstand for the smaller space.
The other main requirement was that the successful Proposer sublease 30% of the
total square footage to Disadvantaged Business Enierprise(s). If the propcsal(s)
was deemed acceptable, the proposer advances to the second stage, which is the
bid stage. The Proposer's bid form is opened at a public meeting and at this stage,
whoever submits the highest bid amount is announced the apparent successful
bidder. This Bidder then submits additional paperwork regarding Human Rights
Commission Requirement to ensure that this Bidder meets those requirements.
Attachment
Page 2 of 2
Memo to Emily Newman
February 23. 2000
Page 2
Result of RFQ/Pf and Bid
There were two companies who submitted proposals: O Host International, Inc. and ©
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC. Both proposals were deemed acceptable,
therefore, both Proposers' bid forms were opened, and the result was:
Bidder Bid Amount
Host International, Inc. 52,550,000
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC 51 ,408,999.99
The Airport Commission formally awarded the Lease to Host International, Inc. en
December 21, 1999.
Highest Bidder and its Proposed Subtenant
Host proposed four concepts in the bigger space, and they are: O Souvenir
merchandise, © Museum items, © Aviation items © California regional packaged food
products, and © High end retail. Host will sublease two of the concepts to the
following DBEs: I-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun Shade Holding Corporation. The rent
for the DBE is as follows: Tenant shall charge the DBE Subtenant, as rent, no more
than the same tiered rent percentage to the DBEs, which is as follows:
■ 12% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved up to and
including $500,000; plus
■ 14% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved from 5500,000.01
up to and including 51,000,000; plus
■ 1 6% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises over 51 ,000,000.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 794-4505 if you have further questions.
Thank you for your assistance in obtaining Board of Supervisors' approval on this
Lease.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Items 8 and 9 - File 00-0235 and File 00-0236
Department:
Item:
Comment:
Airport
File 00-0235 : Resolution approving two new
automated teller machine leases for the new
International Terminal between Travelex America,
Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco,
acting by and through its Airport Commission.
File 00-0236 : Resolution approving a new
foreign currency exchange lease at the Airport
between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission.
Mr. John Ballesteros of the Airport has requested
that the proposed resolutions be continued for one
week.
Recommendation:
Continue the proposed resolutions to the Finance
and Labor meeting of March 8, 2000 as requested
by the Airport.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 7 - File 00-0244
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Department of Elections
Ordinance appropriating $2,300,097 ($2,118,610 from the
General Fund Reserve and $181,487 from various
governmental revenues) for salaries, fringe benefits, non-
personal services, materials and supplies, and equipment
for the Department of Elections for FY 1999-2000.
$2,300,097
The proposed funding sources for the subject
supplemental appropriation of $2,300,097 are as follows:
Funding Sources
Subtotals
Amount
General Fund Reserve
$2,118,610
Surplus FY' 1999-2000 Revenues (see Comment No. 1)
State Mandated Cost - Various
County Candidate Filing Fees
Other General Government Charges
Subtotal:
104.887
30,300
46.300
$181,487
181.487
TOTAL:
$2,300,097
Description:
The proposed ordinance would appropriate $2,300,097 for
Department of Elections salaries, fringe benefits, non-
personal services, materials and supplies, and equipment.
The total amount of S2. 300.097 would fund three sets of
expenditures:
(a) the projected FY* 1999-2000 budget shortfall of
SI. 482. 730 for Department of Elections operations for
a third election, and higher than anticipated poll
worker fees and mandatory fringe benefits:
(b) a new initiative to update and purge the voter roll
during FY" 1999-2000. at a cost of $210,303: and
(c) miscellaneous system improvements and replacement
costs associated with the implementation of a new
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
S7
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
optical scan vote count system and a new voter
registration scanning system, at a cost of $607,058.
The proposed budget in the amount of $2,300,097 is as
follows:
Expenditure Item
Subtotals
Amount
FY 1999-2000 Budget Shortfall
Permanent Salaries (see Comment No. 1)
($139,939)
Temporary Salaries
526,067
Overtime - Miscellaneous
52,074
Overtime — Temporary
281,660
Premium Pay
8,352
Mandatory Fringe Benefits
91,633
Non-personal Services
294,699
Stipends for Poll Workers
323,679
Materials and Supplies
24,305
Services of Other Departments
20.200
Subtotal:
1,482,730
$1,482,730
Update and Purge of Voter Roll
Temporary Salaries
140,626
Overtime - Temporary
12,799
Mandatory Fringes
21,884
Non-personal Services
35,000
Subtotal-
210,309
210,309
Costs Associated with New Scanning Svstems
100,000
Temporary Salaries
Minor Furnishings
293,808
Equipment Purchase
213.250
Subtotal:
$607,058
607.058
TOTAL:
$2, 300,097
Attachment I. provided by the Department of Elections,
presents an analysis of the Department's projected
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
expenditure deficit and explains the projected budget for
the proposed supplemental appropriation in more detail.
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Ara Minasian of the Department of
Administrative Services, $181,487 of FY 1999-2000
department revenues are surplus because the revenues
from (a) State mandated costs, (b) county candidate filing
fees, and (c) other general government charges are
$181,487 higher than estimated. Mr. Minasian adds that
permanent salaries ire projected to be underexpended by
$139,939 due to the vacancy of two positions for most of
FY 1999-2000 and such savings can be used a source of
funds for the proposed supplemental appropriation.
According to Mr. Minasian, the Department of
Elections' FY 1999-2000 operating budget was submitted
and approved on the assumption that two elections would
be conducted during the year, one on November 2. 1999
and a second on March 7, 2000. However, the
Department of Election's FY' 1999-2000 costs have
increased due to (a) the December 14, 1999 Mayoral and
District Attorney run-off election, (b) a $120,000 increase
in poll worker fees due to improved recruitment and
retention of qualified, dependable poll workers and a
consequent reduction in poll worker absenteeism, and (c)
the payment of $30,000 in mandatory fringe benefits to
temporary employees who have been retained for most of
FY 1999-2000 due to the three elections. These three
increased expenditures have resulted in an estimated
total overexpenditure of $1,482,730 after accounting for
the anticipated expenditures for the March 7. 2000
primary election.
3. Ms. Naomi Xishioka of the Department of Elections
states that the proposed supplemental appropriation can
be reduced by $10,000 as the Department of Elections will
not need to enter into a $10,000 contract with a phone
bank services company for the March 7, 2000 election.
The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that the
proposed supplemental appropriation of $2,300,097 be
reduced by $10,000 for an amended total of $2,290,097.
4. According to Ms. Xishioka. the Department of
Elections has not thoroughly purged the voter roll of
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
duplicate and other inactive registrations since FY 1996-
97. Such a purge would (a) improve the accuracy of the
voter roll, (b) reduce the variable costs associated with
each registered voter, such as printing and mailing voter
information pamphlets, and (c) speed up the processing of
special ballots. Ms. Nishioka states that the planned
voter file purging activities, at a total cost of $210,309,
include:
• verifying the addresses of persons who have not voted
or contacted the Department of Elections over a long
period of time and analyzing voter registrations
through the CALVOTER system, using temporary
staff at an estimated cost of $175,309; and
• . buying back from the United States Postal Service
40,000 March 7, 2000 voter information pamphlets
which could not be delivered, mailing 40,000 correction
confirmation cards to voters, and receiving an
estimated 20,000 business reply paid cards back, at an
estimated total cost of $35,000.
According to Ms. Nishioka, voter roll purging has not been
performed by permanent City employees in the past
because the Department of Elections has not had, and
continues not to have, sufficient permanent staff capacity
to perform such work. The last such purging of the voter
roll, performed in FY 1996-97, was performed by
temporary employees.
5. Attachment II, provided by the Department of
Elections, explains the budget for voter roll purging in
more detail. Mr. Minasian states that the difference of
$21,885 between Attachment II's total of $188,424 and
the subject supplemental appropriation request for
$210,309 is accounted for by mandatory fringe benefits.
6. According to Ms. Nishioka, the Department of
Elections plans to enter into an equipment lease
purchasing agreement in the Spring of 2000. subject to
Board of Supervisors approval, to purchase a new optical
scan vote count system for use in the November 7, 2000
general election. Ms. Nishioka states that the estimated
total cost of the Election Systems and Software. Inc.
(ES&S) hardware and software required for an optical
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
scan vote count system would be $3,241,738 (inclusive of
Sales Tax). Ms. Nishioka states that the initial lease
purchase payments for acquisition of the ES&S optical
scan vote count system will be included in the
Department of Elections FY 2000-2001 budget in the
approximate amount of $767,000.
7. Ms. Nishioka states that, in order to ensure a smooth
conversion to the new system, during FY 1999-2000 (a)
ancillary information systems hardware and software,
furniture, and other infrastructure need to be upgraded or
replaced at an esti mated cost of $402,008, and (b)
temporary City staff with project management skills need
to be hired to support a wide variety of planning activities
at an .-timated cost of $100,000.
Mr. Minasian states thai the $100,000 budget for
temporary project management itaff was determined by
the Elections Council which comprises the Controller, the
City Administrator, and a representative of the City
Attorney's Office. According to Controller Ed Harrington,
the Elections Council strongly recommends funding for
necessary project management and critical technical
resources to ensure that the new optical scan vote count
in is implemented successfully by the November 7.
2000 general election. Mr. Harrington adds that details
on such project management staffing will be identified
during the remainder of FY 1999-2000 and specifically
enumerated in the proposed FY 2000-2001 budget.
Furthermore, equipment in the amount of $105,050 needs
to be purchased for a new voter registration scanning
system for the reasons outlined in the attached
memorandum provided by the Department of Elections
(Attachment III).
8. Mr. Minasian states that funding in the amount of
$607,058 was not included in the FY 1999-2000 budget as
the decision to purchase a new optical scan vote count
system and a new voter registration scanning system was
not made until after the Department of Election's FY
1999-2000 budget was finalized. Attachment IV is a
detailed budget in the amount of $607,058 provided by the
Department of Elections. The Budget Analyst has
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
reviewed vendor price quotations for the equipment
specified and found that the budget amount requested is
reasonable. With regard to Attachment rVs line-item
budget for voting booths, the proposed amount of
$250,000 would purchase between approximately 3,846
and 4,167 voting booths at the anticipated cost of between
$60 and $65 per voting booth.
Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 3 above, reduce the
total supplemental appropriation by $10,000 to
$2,290,097.
2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
Department of Elections
Operating Needs January - June 2000
Actual thru
1/19/00
Projected
Add'l Fundin
g Needs fo
1/19/00
Projection
Actual
Revised
Surplus/
Operating
Voter File
(ppd 1/7/00)
Jan-June
+ Projection
Budget
(Deficit)
Costs
Maint
001 Permanent Salaries
$ 336.918
S 353.835
$ 690.753
S 830.692
S 139.939
$ 139.939
005 Temporary Salaries
Voter Services
333.393
Precinct Services
234. 124
Candidate/Campaign Services
71 '33
Publications and Media
20,355
Computer Services
21.392
Administrative Services
5,000
Total
827.872
685,397
1.513.269
846.576
■-.693)
(526.067)
01 101 Overtime- Misc.
66 549
33.275
99.824
47,750
■
01 105 Overtime - Temp.
Voter Services
59.184
Precinct Services
28.584
Candidate Campaign. Services
30.892
Publications and Media
3.053
Computer Services
5 157
[2i--
Total
246,724
126.870
373.594
79,135
(28: •
00901 Premium Pay
5,926
5.926
(8.2
013 Mandatory Fringes
211.675
171.923
383.598
270.081
113 517)
(91 E
I
021 Non-Personal Svcs (excl. 02699)
Voter Services
.
Precinct Services
139,034
Candidate/Campaign Services
18.400
Publications and Media
363.096
Computer Services
■
Total
978.441
4.208
1.274,509
(329
(294,699)
02699 Other Fees
Precinct Services
482.066
729.894
40!
(323.679)
■
let Services
109.520
Precinct Services
90 576
Candidate/Campaign S
5.000
Computer Services
1.800
Total
174,189
381.085
356.780
081 Services of Other Departments
320.981
360.365
Total Operating Needs for Jan-June
S 3.369,744
S2, 773, 698
S 6,148,442
$4,455,403
5(1,693.039)
| $(1,432,730)
;■ : 20;
2/18/00
I. VOTER SERVICES DIVISION - DEPARTMENT OF ELECTION
FY 1999-2000 / Budget Estimates for Voter File Maintenance Activities
Attachment II
TEMPORARY SALARIES
7 Week period before and after election Voter File Maintenance
Position
Staff
Regular Hours
Overtime
Hours
Hourly Rate
Regular Amount
Overtime
Amount
1404 -DE
8
280
16
$15.18
$ 33,992
S 2,914
1402- DE
3
280
16
S13.96
S 11,729
S 1,005
1403 -DE
2
280
16
S16.78
S 9,394
S 805
3 Week period before and after election Voter File Maintenance - Manual
Position
Staff
Regular Hours
Overtime
Hours
Hourly Rate
Regular Amount
Overtime
Amount
1403- AS
2
120
16
S16.78
S 4,026
S 805
1402 -AS
13
120
16
S13.96
S 21,782
S 4,356
1404 -AS
8
120
16
$15.18
S 14,568
S 2,914
Total
$ 95,490
S 12,799
S 108, 2i
I. MVF - Calvoter System Analysis of Voter Registrations - SOS Recommendations
Position
Staff
Regular Hours
Overtime
Hours
Hourly Rate
Regular Amount
Overtime
Amount
1404- DE
7
180
$15.18
$ 19,121
S
S 19,12
a.
Sample Ballot Postal Buy Back:
Estimated returned corrections
QUANTITY COST EST.
40,000
S 22,000
S22.0
b.
Postage Cost for Mailing of 8D-2 Cards:
Mailing to voters confirming corrections
QUANTITY COST EST.
40,000| S 8,000
S 8.0C
c.
Business Reply 8d2 Postage
Estimate 1/2 of the cards to be returned by voters
QUANTITY COST EST.
20,000| S 5,000
S 5.0C
TEMPORARY SALARIES-On Rotation through June 30, 2000
Staff to maintain workflow during off peak election period.
Position
Staff
Regu
ar Hours
Overtime
Hours
Hourly Rate
Regu
ar Amount
Overtime
Amount
1404 -DE
1
1040
$15.18
S
15,782
S
1403 -DE
1
610
S16.78
s
10,233
S
TOTAL
$
26,015
DE = Data Entry
AS = Assembly
GRAND TOTAL S 188.4
Note: This reflects periods of time when the workload is at its peak and staff is under regulated deadlines. This does not
reflect staff time for any unforseen state petitions that are scheduled to be filed before the June deadline. Nor does this
reflect an abundance of voter response due to the above mailirgs.
narda's voter file maintenance estimate.xls
AS OF: 2/18/00
Department of Elections
City and County of San Francisco
Attachment III
N \omi NlSHIOKA
Icting Director of Election
February 23, 2000
To Alan Gibson
Budget Analyst
From : Naomi Nishioka
Acting Director of Elections
Subject: Supplemental Appropriation — Clarification on Voter Registration System
Equipment Included in the Voting System Replacement Project Budget
I would like to clarify some information about the $607,058 budget for the Voting System
Replacement Project. Most of the equipment in this budget is related to the new optical
scan voting system; however, approximately $100,000 of this equipment is to support
the automation of voter registration file maintenance functions.
The Secretary of State has approved a new registration form that is designed to be
scanned into voter files using optical character recognition equipment and software.
Implementation of this equipment will reduce the need for our staff to enter data
manually. Instead, staff will be focused on reviewing the scanned information for
completeness and accuracy. This will increase the overall reliability of our voter
information files.
Such equipment in the project budget consists of the following:
Information Systems Hardware and Software
Monitor, Large - 21" Data Entry
Scanner
Output Tray for LJ8100 Printer
Office 2000
Scanner ICR Software
SQL Upgrade - 50 CAL Upgrade
Op-Contract / Scanning Workstation
Please call me if you have any questions.
c: Bill Lee
Ed Harrington
Mayor's Budget Office
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place - Room 48. San Francisco, CA 94102-4634
Voice (415) 554-4375; Fax (415) 554-7344; Absentee Fax (415) 554-4372; TDD (415) 5S4-43U
Quantity
Price
Amount
16
850
13.600
2
25,000
50,000
1
2,000
2,000
30
600
18,000
1
14,000
14,000
1
3,450
3,450
1
4,000
4,000
105,050
Attachment
Department of Elections
Voting System Replacement Project Budget for FY 99-00
IV
Information Systems Hardware and Software
Quantity
Price
Amount
Network Server Equipment
Server
1
$30,000
$ 30,000
Server Rack
1;
3,000
3,000
Server Rack Conversion Kit
1
500
500
Memory Upgrade - Existing Server
4
400
1,600
Memory Upgrade - Vote Count
3
250
750
i Subtotal
35,850
Desktop Computers
Computers
40
1,100 .
44,000
Laptops
6
3,500
21,000
; Subtotal
65,000
Monitors
Regular- 17"
17
250
4,250
Large - 21" Data Entry
16
850
13,600
Flat Screen AV Counter
5
900
4,500
Subtotal
i
22,350
Misc Hardware
Scanner
2
25,000 :
50,000
: Projectors Screens
2
300
600
; Output Tray for LJ8 100 Printer
1
2,000
2,000
ZIP Drive, CDRW Drive
T
Looo :
1,000
! Subtotal
I
53,600
Software
i Office 2000
30
600 :
18,000
Misc Software Upgrades
1
1,000
1,000
Scanner ICR Software
1
14,000 :
14,000
SQL Upgrade - 50 CAL Upgrade
1
3,450 j
3,450
Subtotal
36,450
Subtotal - IS Hardware and Software
213,250
Other Furnishings
Voting Booths
i
250,000
Op-Contract / Data Entry Workstations
I . 121
29,563
Op-Contract / Scanning Workstation
1
4,000
4,000
Absentee Ballot Cages
2
220
440
Absentee/VRC Carts
5
261
1,305
Absentee Ballot Sealer
1
4,000
4,000
Absentee Ballot Sorting Bins
2
500
1,000
Absentee Letter Opener Attachment
1 j
3.000
3,000
VRC Storage Trays
100
5
500
Subtotal - Other Furnishings
293,808
Project Management
100,000
Total Project Budget for FY 99-00
$607,058
2/3/00
£<;
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 6 - File 00-0273
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Mayor's Office
Ordinance appropriating $507,025 to General City
Responsibility, Payments to Other Governments, and
rescinding $507,025 from Lease-Purchase, to provide funds
for San Francisco's share of the capital improvement
budget at the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, for
Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
$507,025
Equipment Lease-Purchase Appropriation
The proposed ordinance would appropriate $507,025 in
savings generated through the San Francisco Finance
Corporation, to complete San Francisco's capital program
payment for the 1999-2000 Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board Caltrain Capital Plan. Such funds would be
transferred from the Equipment Lease-Purchase account to
the General City Responsibility account to be used for the
stated purpose.
In August of 1991, the City entered into a Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) with the San Mateo County Transit
District (SamTrans) and the Santa Clara County Transit
District regarding the Peninsula Corridor Project. The
Peninsula Corridor Project involves the Caltrain route that
currently extends from Gilroy to San Francisco. At that
time, a Joint Powers Board (JPB) was established as the
eventual successor to the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to oversee the Caltrain operator,
which is currently Amtrak. ,
The JPB consists of nine members, three of which represent
the City and County of San Francisco. One member is
appointed by the Mayor, one is appointed by the Board of
Supervisors, and one is appointed by the Public
Transportation Commission (PTC). The JPB provides for
the allocation among the JPB members of the
administrative, capital, and operating expenses in
connection with the above-noted Peninsula Corridor
Project.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
43
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
On August 18, 1999, the Joint Powers Board (JPB)
approved a two-year capital program for maintenance and
improvements to Caltrain's right-of-way facilities, and
rolling stock. The total program calls for completion of
$84,025,688 in projects, as shown in Attachment I.
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Benjamin Rosenfield of the Mayor's
Office, the Federal and State governments will provide
$73,559,097 to fund the Caltrain capital projects and the
three Counties will provide $10,466,591 in local matching
funds ($73,559,097 plus $10,466,591, totaling $84,025,688).
Of the $10,466,591 local match, $3,384,000 would be offset
by JPB fare box capital reserves. The remaining
$7,082,591 would come directly from the three Counties
over a two-year period, $3,000,000 in FY 1999-2000 and
$4,082,591 in FY 2000-2001. Attachment II, provided by
the Mayor's Office, contains a breakdown of the proposed
funding sources.
2. Mr. Rosenfield states that each of the three Counties
shares the capital match requirements equally, resulting in
a $1,000,000 match (one-third of $3,000,000) from San
Francisco for FY 1999-2000. Of San Francisco's $1,000,000
match, $492,975 would come from operating budget savings
generated by the JPB in FY 1998-1999 and held on San
Francisco's behalf. The remaining $507,025, which is the
subject of this ordinance, would come from current year
San Francisco Finance Corporation debt service savings.
According to Mr. Rosenfield, such savings have come from
lower than expected debt service payments on equipment
purchased through the equipment lease financing program.
Mr. Rosenfield states that such debt service payment
savings have resulted from (a) greater than anticipated
interest accrual on equipment lease financing reserve
funds, which have been used to make debt service
payments in lieu of budgeted General Fund monies, and (b)
surplus equipment lease financing reserve funds.
3. According to Mr. Rosenfield, San Francisco's capital
match requirement for FY 2000-2001 would be $1,360,864.
Mr. Rosenfield states that such funds would be requested in
the FY 2000-2001 budget. Mr. Rosenfield also states that
the Mayor's Office is working with Ms. Carmen Clark of the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Transportation Authority to identify non-General Fund
sources to pay for Caltrain capital improvement projects in
future years.
4. According to Mr. Jim Gallagher of the JPB, the proposed
Caltrain capital improvement projects are intended to
improve the Caltrain infrastructure, resulting in service
improvements. Mr. Gallagher states that ndership on
Caltrain. which provides commuter trains between Gilroy
and San Francisco, has increased by 30 percent since 1992,
and currently is increasing by approximately 6 percent per
month. According to Mr. Gallagher, commuters travelling
from San Francisco to jobs in Silicon Valley represent a
major increase in overall Caltrain ndership.
5. As noted above. Attachment I contains a list of the
proposed Caltrain capital improvement projects and the
associated costs. Mr. Gallagher advises that JPB will
follow competitive bidding procedures and award the
capital improvement project contracts to the firms that
submit the lowest bid.
Recommendation: Approve the requested supplemental appropriation.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
U5
FEB. -16' OO(WED) 09:58 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Attachment I
Page 1 of 9
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
FY 2000 &. 2001 CALTRAIN PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
The following is a listing of Capital projects included in the current budget period. A brief
description is presented for each project along with the total estimated cost to complete.
The extent to which capital projects impact the FY 2000 and 2001 operating budget is closely tied
to Caltrain's Contract Operations (Amtrak) costs. The current arrangement involves a fixed-price
management contract which will be in effect until June 2000. Projects in the FY 2000 and
2001 capital budget will result in higher or lower operating and maintenance costs to the contract
operator in the near term. Therefore, those costs or benefits resulting from current projects will
likely be factored into the next contract. At present, associated dollar amounts have not been
determined for most projects. However, for those projects for which a dollar value for operating
budget impact is not available, an assessment has been made as to whether its ultimate completion
will result in higher, lower, or no significant impact in the operating budget.
1. STATIONS & INTERMODAL ACCESS - FY 2000 &. 2001 BUDGET: S25.8S0.190
PROJECT TITLE: Platform & Trackwork-Millbrae Intennodal
DESCRIPTION: Construction of Caltrain elements of the Caltrain - BART Millbrae
Intermodal Station. Project elements include crossovers, two additional
boarding platforms and sidings on the east side of the Caltrain tracks.
COST ESTIMATE: $3,000,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: Station Rehabilitation - Varions Stations
DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitation of elements of various Caltrain stations.
COST ESTIMATE: $780,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
FEB. -16' 00 (WED) 09:58 SAMTRANS
TEL : 1 415 508 6281
Attachment
Pase 1 of \
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
PROJECT TITLE: Platform & Trackwork - SSF
DESCRIPTION: Rebuilding of the South San Francisco Station south of the existing station,
to include: outside boarding platforms; access from both sides of the rail
line; easy shuttle access from the east side of the tracks; a grade separated
pedestrian crossing; and relocated UP freight tracks.
COST ESTIMATE: $7,150,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: Platform & Trackwork - Broadway
DESCRIPTION: Rebuilding the Broadway (Burlingame) Station south of the existing
stauon, to include outside boarding platforms and a third track. The third
track between the new Millbrae Stauon and Broadway Station will enable
express trains to pass local trains.
COST ESTIMATE: S6.050.000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: Platform &. Trackwork - Diridon
DESCRIPTION: Rebuilding the tracks, platforms, terminal facilities and pedestrian subways
at Diridon Station, along with realignment and rehabilitation of yard tracks. The project will
improve operations for all station users (Caltrain, Amtrak, Capitol Corridor, ACE and UPRR),
assist the VTA in completing the Vasona LRT project and improve the speed at which trains can
operate into and out of the terminal.
COST ESTIMATE: $4,825,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
Ll
FEB- - 16' 00 (WED) 09 : 59 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Attachment I
Page 3 of 9
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
PROJECT TITLE: Platform & Trackwork - San Bruno
DESCRIPTION: The San Bruno Caltrain station at Linden Avenue will be closed while
construction of the BART SFO extension is underway. Once the BART
project is complete, a new station wil] be built at the original location or
anothd location in the city. This project will begin once the station site has
been selected.
COST ESTIMATE: $2,750,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: ADA Improvements - Various Stations
DESCRIPTION: ADA improvements consistent with applicable needs. The program will be
assessed as part of an ongoing effort to provide stations improvements,
enhancements and ADA-specific improvements such as Talking Signs and
PA/Visual Messaging Systems,
COST ESTIMATE: $1,295,190
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. Potential annual O & M associated
with IT. facilities.
2. RIGHT OF WAY - FY 2000 & 2001 BUDGET: S32.150.574
PROJECT TITLE: Systemwide Track Rehabilitation
DESCRIPTION: This project consists of the rehabilitation of Caltrain infrastructure such as:
replacement of rails and ties; bridge repairs and replacement; tunnel
repairs; maintenance of way facilities; and rolling stock purchases; and
improvements related to the Fiber Optic Backbone Network.
COST ESTIMATE: $21,000,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. Is expected to decrease annual O &. M
(Maintenance of Way) expenses.
L9.
Attachment
FEB. - 16' 00 (WED) 09: 59 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Page A ' of 9
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
PROJECT TITLE: Centralized Traffic Control (Signal Upgrade)
DESCRIPTION: Installation of a centralized traffic control (CTC) signaling system on the
segment of the Caltrain line that is currently controlled by an antiquated
automatic block signaling system
COST ESTIMATE: $ 1 0,044,324
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Expected annual O & M expenses to be determined.
PROJECT TITLE: Centralized Traffic Control (Communications)
DESCRIPTION: Installation of a new data radio system to provide a reliable
"communications link" between signal control points in the field and the
centralized dispatch center. The new system will be connected to two
mountain top base stations that will provide overlapping coverage of the
data radio sites.
COST ESTIMATE: $1,106,250
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Forecasted annual reduction of $50,000 in operating costs.
3. ROLLING STOCK - FY 2000 & 2001 BUDGET: S8.331.000
PROJECT TITLE: Passenger Car Rehabilitation
DESCRIPTION: Project includes the mid-life rehabilitation of the rail car fleet as
recommended by the manufacturer. Includes the rehabilitation of the
chassis, braking systems, interior and exterior components.
COST ESTIMATE: $8,000,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Expected reducu'on in annual O & M expenses associated
with refurbished equipment.
LQ
FEB. - 16' 00 (WED) 09 : 59 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 ^|chm£ntl
Page 5 of 9
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
PROJECT TITLE: Amtrak Non Revenue Vehicles
DESCRIPTION: This project covers the contractually mandated replacement of non-revenue
support vehicles owned by the JPB and operated by Amtrak.
COST ESTIMATE: SI 81 ,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
PROJECT TITLE: Locomotive GPS System
DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of 25 global positioning units (GPS) for installation in Caltrain
locomotives. Included in the project is software and communications
linkages to send information from the GPS system to PC's at Amtrak and
the JPB.
COST ESTIMATE: $150,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Annual program management costs expected to
accommodate service improvements.
4. OPERATIONAL FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT - FY 2000 & 2001 BUDGET:
$11/753.953
PROJECT TITLE: Amtrak Miscellaneous Capital Improvements
DESCRIPTION: This project consists of contractually-mandated capital investments
required to support additional rolling stock and new technology, such as:
maintenance equipment for locomotives; pans and special tools for
locomotives; and spare parts to support Eonderosa/BART project impacts.
COST ESTIMATE: $366,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
FEB. -16' 00 (WED) 09:59 SAMTRANS
TEL:1 415 508 6281
Attachment. I
Page b or 9
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
PROJECT TITLE: Fare Collection (Ticket Vending Machines)
DESCRIPTION: Phase 3 of the Ticket Vending Machine Program. Additional machines will
be necessary system-wide as demand for service is monitored. Phase 3 will
implement ticket vending machines (TVM'S) at stations with increased
fare collection needs.
COST ESTIMATE: S500.000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Significant O & M expense associated wi'h fare collection
system. Amount to be determined once system is in
operation. Anticipated reducu'on in on-board service
collection expenses and improved fare collection practices.
PROJECT TITLE: Parking Revenue Equipment
DESCRIPTION: Phase 2 of a project started in FY 2000 under the "Station Rehabilitation
program. This project would provide 40 units of automated parking
revenue collection equipment at lower volume and non-market rate lots.
The equipment would be capable of variable rates and automated
information reporting.
COST ESTIMATE: S200.000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: Caltrain Maintenance Facility
DESCRIPTION: This project consists of constructing a new maintenance facility for
Caltrain at the Lenzen site in San Jose. The project includes rebuilding the
College Park Station slightly to the North of the current location.
COST ESTIMATE: $10,307,953
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Significant impact. Operating plan to be determined.
51
FEB. -16" OO(WED) 10:00 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Attachment I
Paee 7 of 9
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
PROJECT TITLE: "Warehousing - ROW Equipment & Spares
DESCRIPTION: Storage space for signal materials to be removed and salvaged from the
Ponderosa and the Ralston-Holly-Harbor project. These facilities include
signal masts, cases case components, signal heads, gates and grade
crossing warning devices.
COST ESTIMATE: $200,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: Amtrak Office Module Replacement
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of two work modules located at the San Jose or San Francisco
terminals. All office modules are reaching the end of their useful lives and
must be evaluated for replacement. All efforts will be made to extend
useful life first.
COST ESTIMATE: $120,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: Rail Operations Scheduling & Planning Software
DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of PC-based software, training and documentation to develop
and analyze future Caltrain service scenarios, schedules and costs.
COST ESTIMATE: $50,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT; No significant impact. May result in cost savings associated
with service development efficiencies.
FEB. - 1 6' 00 (WED) 10:00 SAMTRANS TEL 1415 508 6281 Attachment I
Page 8 of r»
Caltraln Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
PROJECT TITLE: Amtrak SCO Office Security Improvements
DESCRIPTION: This project is requested based on Amtrak security audit and
recommendations. The project would improve security at Amtrak dispatch
center by adding combination lock entry door system to trainmaster office,
and changing current sliding window to bullet frroof window with
document transfer and speaker system.
COST ESTIMATE: S 1 0,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
S. OTHER PROJECTS - FY 2000 & 2001 BUDGET: S5.939.97l
PROJECT TITLE: Capital Program Development
DESCRIPTION: This project fund was established to ensure that program development costs
could be captured as a capital cost as opposed to an operating expense. It
covers such activities as capital budget and programming process, gran:
development, capital tracking and development systems and internal
program meeting costs.
COST ESTIMATE: S400.000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: 5200,000 reduction in operating costs (wages and benefits).
PROJECT TITLE: Capital Project Development
DESCRIPTION: This project fund was established to ensure that project development costs
could be captured as a capital cost as opposed to an operating expense. The
development of accurate estimates and project assessments is essential to
ensure good project development It covers such activities as initial capital
project cost estimates and development; and internal program meeting
costs.
COST ESTIMATE: $1,000,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
FEB. -16' OO(WED) 10:00 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Attachment I
Page 9 of 9
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001
PROJECT TITLE: SF DTX EIR Completion
DESCRIPTION: Completion of the San Francisco Downtown Extension Environmental
Impact Report.
COST ESTIMATE: $564,971
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: Electrification - EIR / PE
DESCRIPTION: Electrification of Caltrain - Environmental Impact Report and Planning &
Engineering.
COST ESTIMATE: $3,375,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact.
PROJECT TITLE: Small Projects
DESCRIPTION: This project fund was established to ensure that small projects that are
necessary, but do not warrant a separate budget line item, could be
completed It covera miscellaneous improvements that generally cost
between $5,000 - $20,000, such as equipment and other facility needs.
COST ESTIMATE: $600,000
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Minor O & M budget savings.
FEB. -16' 00 (WED) 10:00 SAMTRANS
TEL: 1 415 508 6281
Attachment
Page 1 of 2
J ° ? a
Istl
I ill]
iilil
sssss
$88
• s c °
88
??
J.I
o «* »
>^1
Hi
Ell
I
5, a I
ill
i
" P ■»
US
ill
fit
51!
8 3 8 n .8 ji ,
5SS3 1%H
gSSSsSSS
8 3
Is
3 8 S .8 S 3 | S
1 1 1 I 5 LU_i_
5 3
% I I I
[11
of ?
III
e
= 5*3
!
!
!
W
II]
si :
!l
ffif.Ell
c i ? » i
I? i
.1
I
ill
> - A^ ■ ■ m
2 8 3 8 888
s i § I s 8 §
: : : 1 1 -5
2 8 3 8 i if
a ! I • • 1 5
ii
81 8
8 8 S
I Ii
i §
i '8
Caltrain Capital Budget
Local Match Requirements
Attachment II
tage Z of 2
Plan Total 1999-00 2000-01
Required local match 10,466,591 5,256,000 5.210,591
Fare box capital reserve 3,384,000 2,256,000 1,128,000
Member agency contributions 7,082,591 3,000,000 4,082,591
San Francisco 2,360,864 1,000,000 1,360,864
San Mateo 2,360,864 1,000,000 1,360,864
Santa Clara 2,360,864 1,000,000 1,360,864
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 5 - File 00-0272
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Ordinance appropriating $600,000 of the Water
Department Enterprise Fund unappropriated surplus fund
balance to fund initial clean-up activities of San Francisco
Public Utibties Commission Bayside property, located west
of the Dumbarton Bridge, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
$600,000
Water Department Enterprise Fund unappropriated
surplus fund balance
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
leased 17 acres of PUC Bayside property to the Peninsula
Sportsman's Club from 1939 until 1994. The property i>
located west of the Dumbarton Bridge, next to the city of
East Palo Alto. The Peninsula Sportsman's Club operated
a trap and skeet range that resulted in the accumulation of
lead shot and clay pigeon debris. In 1994 the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Control Board issued a cleanup and
abatement order to the Peninsula Sportsman's Club. As
the property owner, the PUC was named the secondary
responsible party. In 1996 the PUC evicted the Peninsula
Sportsman's Club from the subject property and shortly
afterward, the Peninsula Sportsman's Club declared
bankruptcy, leaving no recoverable assets. Therefore, the
PUC became solely responsible for the cleanup of the
subject PUC property. Due to administrative delays,
neither the PUC nor the Regional Water Control Board
pursued the cleanup and abatement order from the time
the Peninsula Sportsman's Club was evicted in 1996 until
July of 1999. In July of 1999 the Regional Water Control
Board issued a letter to the PUC, requiring the PUC to
begin the cleanup. The PUC submitted a report to the
Regional Water Control Board on November 1, 1999,
detailing the results of the PUC's site investigation.
The PUC has begun the process of complying with the
Regional Water Control Board's enforcement action. The
PUC and the Regional Water Control Board have not yet
negotiated the full extent of the necessary cleanup.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
37
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Approximately 25 acres of PUC land have been
contaminated, and additional land, including a salt pond
belonging to a neighboring landowner, has been
contaminated. According to the PUC, total cleanup costs
may be up to $12,000,000, depending on the amount of soil
to be removed to a hazardous waste disposal site and on
needed cleanup efforts at the adjacent salt pond.
The immediate cleanup costs will be approximately
$3,100,000, of which $600,000 are the subject of this
supplemental appropriation ordinance, and an additional
$2,500,000 will be requested in the FY 2000-2001 PUC
budget.
The first clean-up project includes the removal of 2,600 tons
of clay pigeon debris from the subject property. The project
was identified as a priority because the debris is
contaminated with lead and other toxins 1 . The clean up
will start upon approval of the proposed supplemental
appropriation ordinance and will cost approximately
$600,000.
Budget: The summary budget for the proposed supplemental
appropriation is as follows:
Wetlands Delineation $ 6,600
Archaeological Consultants 4,924
Habitat Assessment 10,265
Fence Construction (Protection of
Endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse) 4,000
Sampling and Characterization of
Debris Piles for Disposal 10.170
Clay Pigeon Excavation and
Staging 45,092
Trucking Costs ' 95,000
Landfill Disposal of Debris Piles 365,274
Public Affairs Support 71.920
Total $613,244
Attachment I, provided by the PUC, contains details to
support the summary budget noted above. According to
Mr. John Mundy of the PUC, funds totaling $1
1 The clay pigeon debris contains polynuclear aromatics, a carcinogenic substance similar to
asphalt but less stable, which can contaminate the soil and groundwater.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
($613,244 less $600,000) are available in the FY 1999-2000
PUC budget.
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Mundy, the PUC selected five
environmental service contractors through a Request for
Proposal (RFP) process in May of 1999 to perform
environmental work for the PUC on an as-needed basis.
Three of the five contractors would perform such work on
the subject property as follows:
- Baseline Environmental, Inc would identify wetlands'
boundaries, and design mitigation measures to ensure
careful control of contaminant removal activities at the
subject property at an estimated cost of $6,600.
- Tetra Tech, Inc. would (a) construct a fence to protect the
endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse habitat at an
estimated cost of $4,000, (b) perform an habitat assessment
of possible threatened and endangered plant and animal
species at the subject site at an estimated cost of $10,265,
and (c) subcontract with PAE Environmental Services, Inc..
to conduct an investigation of possible archaeological and
historical sites on the subject property it an estimated cost
of $4,924.
- Camp, Dresser, and McKee. Inc. would sample potentially
contaminated soil on the subject property and prepare a
technical memorandum at an estimated cost of $10,170.
2. Mr. Mundy reports that PUC has budgeted $71,920 for
public affairs services, which would be provided by Tony
Wessling, a consultant currently providing the PUC with
public affairs support (Attachment II). Mr. Mundy states
that such public affairs services have three components.
According to Mr. Mundy. the first two components of the
public affairs program were developed by the PUC to
respond to the East Palo Alto community's concern
regarding the impact of the contamination on their
community. Additionally, the third component of the public
affairs program is required by the Regional Water Control
Board. First, the PUC would provide outreach to the East
Palo Alto community, which has formerly had access to the
unfenced subject property, to address their environmental
concerns. Second, removal of the contaminated soil requires
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
transporting the soil through the East Palo Alto
community. The public affairs consultant would provide
notification to the community and organize public meetings
for the community to express their concern regarding the
transportation of the contaminated materials. Third, the
Regional Water Control Bjard requires that the PUC
conduct neighborhood meetings to discuss the PUC's efforts
to clean-up the subject property and to respond to
comments from the community prior to further remediation
efforts (after the clay pigeon debris clean-up) in FY 2000-
2001.
3. Of the $613,245 in initial clean-up costs for the clay
pigeon debris, an estimated $505,368 would include
excavation and staging of the clay pigeon debris ($42,092),
transporting of the debris to a hazardous waste landfill
($95,000), and debris disposal at the landfill ($365,274).
According to Mr. Mundy, the PUC will use Department of
Public Works (DPW) hazardous material incident response
contractors, selected by DPW through an RFP process to
perform such work on an as-needed basis 2 . According to Mr.
Steve Mullinnix of DPW, DPW will obtain quotes for the
cost of such work from the as-needed contractors after the
contaminated soil at the subject property has been
characterized and negotiations with the Regional Water
Control Board regarding the extent of soil removal have
been completed. The PUC plans to begin such work in May
of 2000. The Budget Analyst recommends that $505,368 of
the requested $600,000 supplemental appropriation be
placed on reserve, pending submission of budget details.
Recommendation: Approve appropriation of the requested $600,000 and
reserve $505,368, as noted in Comment No. 5.
2 According to Mr. Steve Mullinnix of the DPW, the DPW has issued an RFP for as-needed
hazardous material incident response contractors and responses are due on March 22, 2000.
The DPW expects to select such as-needed contractors in April of 2000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
TO 13
■o o
13
T3
aj a>
4) 0)
i
1)
13 13
13 13
13
u
13
D u
01 0)
10
IB
CO
0)
0) 0)
a> at
0)
■
c c
c c
c
c
c
c
c
in in
en en
o
ro a>
ID .1
CO
CO
O O
O O
5
U
5
5
D D
D D
a.
3
a.
0.
3
a. a.
a. a
a
0.
O
a.
jc c
jc £
jc
JC
j=
JC
JC
a> en
a
■
01
01
-
3 3
3 3
3
3
3
3
o o
o o
o
o
O
O
S £
JC JC
r.
JC
JZ
JC
^
o •*»
o m
O CM CO
O
*r
<•
CN
O CM
O <£>
OOIOI
O
f^
CM
(D CO
O CM
in tt o
O
CM
a>
(O tj-*
V o"
I-" CO V
o
m'
in"
<s> </>
</> «-
</>
01
to
m
•A
c
o
u
<
3
o
a
"(5
2
„
>
■^
to
13
o
o
a.
0)
a:
0)
"
E
o
0Z
2.
I
E
3
c
13
JC
— c
1
E
C
£
c
co
o
3
13
m (5
2 5 <n
• Is J
S w ;>
2 o o
a> *~ <
8§?
"no.
S U. Q.
O •— TO
> ° H
CO
■A c
(0
|l
Q S
CO
"J 0.
"
c 50
« 1--
£)
3
o
"c
CO
E
41 ™
CO .=
c c "5
'— .2 5>
c ™ o
O ~ —
(^ 0) ro
» Q 5>
ra c o
- ffl 0)
a = jc
5 § <
c
a
to m
\ % \
§5| &
32
• 3
• c
.2 ^
J3 -0
c
u
JO
3
O
O
CM
(7T "to
• en
O -o
11
II
*T re
ai re
II
5
r
a
a
3
10
m
in
r
o
a
(ft
« .2 o
"o 3 in
o <- 'o>
a "> o
w § o
■ooin
5 2 1 £
x c > c
w o a. o
C O Q O
Q to
■•-
c
s °-
° E
3 w
Q —
" 2
O C3
Q.<°
a
a>
o
(0
3
</>
'c
V
Q.
o
O
E
a
a
c
to
13
c
■
a
a.
>.
10
■
10
10
JC
CO
u
3
O
C
■
<
3
O
O
<
III
O
£
_l
a
*-
c in
c o
CO <n
— in
- </i
J3 U
•g ^
_ 2?
<D 5
J3 - ^
0. <5 o
9 ! 13
& ■ a
■? E 2
co m
a 2 ^
"I Q. O J3
O "13 3
™ c o - °
- 2 K o o
? 3S a - ° ~
^oa
* .2 in
31 c ~
E ~: **
o tn
O 13
o >.
— ' - c
A S "
13 "5
c
E
B
PJ
n
^
c
11
O 13 tft C:
3 ca-o
^ '5. <
. >.(T
= S U
U —
1 O c <S
1 CE O U
41
FEB-17-2000 09=21
PUC BERM
P. 06/06
Attachment II
PENINSULA SPORTSMAN'S CLUB
PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMPONENT
Tutu: ikJUMinw
Davaitc Fansnas*
Maet with PUC staff
Ganania ana 6* Fact sn*«i
Clarical Support
Malaria*
CtMranaaj wwi Carga] San
Masting Prap
Cargil Uaaanoa (2)
CJarteil Support
Anoncy Coorokattan
Agancy Coonsnaoon
Cancai Support
t 118.00
f 118.00
( U CO
(
(
*
030.00
1.840.00
220.00
tsoooo
i 110.00
1 116 00
J 54.00
>
s
920.00
820 CO
220.00
t 118.00
I 86.00
t
$
020.00
220.00
Tnk2: Inttrlm Hamoval Action Puotte N«fflattat/Otrtra»ch
Davalop Fact SHU
Moat «*inPuc salt C2paja prep) «
Generate and Edi Fad 3f« 18
OarteaJ 3upoon 4
Coaranjia MoDflcaasru^aapaMe
Oaveiop Mating uai
AOnnntfflf Maong
Claneal Support
Fleaponaa Aeemtaa
Matanau
Agency Coonanatlcn
Masting* (2 0ut prep)
Oertcai Support
AofllOonal C«nvnjnica*ana Support
Tuk 3: Presenting, RarrvadlaJ AJtarnaJNa
Oavwoe Fact snaet
Meat wttn PuC Sufi (3 ptut prep)
Osnanue ana Eau F*a SHeet
DOrjnjklM Mada napenaa
Ctaflcsi Support
MthaMi
SfcJuvwIo* IdonMeaeon/Outreacft
hbMl «* PUC Staff (3 plus prop)
SaweaaaCooranati Comas wim Sakanctoare
Summary Mam) Fta PotsnOal Stttenotoar Concern
Gene* Support
Puou Msaung
CoonSnatfl Masting LoglAHCS
Mealing Ulnutsa
Foaonwjpn^aapoAae id Sakanoioar Concama
WraTfaaMmm
uueruua
1 116.00
J 920.00
1 116 00
( 1.840.00
{ MOO
t 220.00
taoooo
6118.00
t 4.600.00
S 116.00
I 82000
1 6800
( 220.00
(11800
( 4.800 00
1600 00
3 116.00
I 2,760.00
( 86.00
J 22000
( 118.00
S 2.-80 00
(28,860.00
(118.00
( I. 380.00
(116J30
( 4.600.00
J 116,00
( 3^*0 00
( 66.00
( 440.00
( 600.00
( 116.00
( 1,3*0.00
(116.00
( 3,M0.OO
(118.00
( 2.780.00
( 86.00
( 44000
(11100
( 2.780 00
( 6600
( 8*0 00
(116 00
( 3.660 00
(100 00
(600 X
Tii.k 4: Media Control During Negcrtlattorui for Remedial Altamujves
AsW4oaiMd Sarvicca 180 (118.00
( 11.400.00
% 71,820.00
TOTAL P. 06
V)
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 4 - File 00-0271
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Superior Court
Ordinance appropriating $558,000 from the General Fund
Reserve to fund the increased costs of indigent defense in
adult criminal and juvenile delinquency cases for the Trial
Court for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, providing for ratification
of action previously taken.
$558,000
General Fund Reserve
The proposed ordinance would appropriate $558,000 to
fund increased Indigent Defense Program costs due to (a)
increased private attorney costs, resulting from increased
case load, and <b> proposed increased reimbursement rates
for private investigators paid through the Indigent Defense
Program. Of the requested $558,000 supplemental
appropriation, $508,000 would pay for increased costs for
Indigent Defense Program private attorneys, resulting from
increased caseload, and $50,000 would pay for a proposed
$5 per hour increase in the reimbursement rate for private
investigators.
The increased expenditures for private defense attorneys
have resulted from the increased number of indigent
individuals assigned private defense attorneys through the
Indigent Defense Program. Ordinarily, the Public
Defender's Office provides defense attorneys to indigent
individuals who have been charged with a crime. If the
Public Defender's Office determines that a conflict of
interest would result if the Public Defender were to provide
the defense attorney, the Superior Court 1 appoints a
private defense attorney through the Superior Court's
Indigent Defense Program. The Superior Court pays the
fees for such private defense attorneys at a predetermined
rate. As noted in Comment No. 1. the Indigent Defense
Program expenditures increased between June of 1998
through September of 1999. From March of 1998 until
1 The City's Superior and Municipal Courts, formerly titled "Trial Court", are now under the heading
Superior Court of California. County of San Francisco".
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
29
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
October 1, 1999 2 , the Public Defender's Office provided
attorneys in only three of the four courtrooms that held
arraignment hearings. Therefore, the Court assigned
private defense attorneys through the Indigent Defense
Program to indigent individuals who had arraignment
neanngs in the courtroom that did not have attorneys from
the Public Defenders Office. Approval of the proposed
ordinance would appropriate $508,000 to fund increased
expenditures, resulting from the increased number of
indigent individuals who have been assigned private
defense attorneys through the Indigent Defense Program.
Additionally, approval of the proposed ordinance would
appropriate $50,000 to pay for a proposed increase in the
hourly rate for private investigators, working with the
private defense attorneys. Court-appointed private
attorneys can petition the Court to provide funds to pay for
private investigators on behalf of the indigent client.
Currently, the rate for such private investigators, which
was set in 1984, is $35 per hour. The subject ordinance
would fund a $5 per hour rate increase, increasing the
private investigator rate from $35 per hour to $40 per hour.
The requested $50,000 appropriation would provide a $5
per hour rate increase for 10.000 hours of private
investigator time, from January 1, 2000, through June 30,
2000.
San Francisco began participation in the State Trial Court
Funding Program in FY 1988-89. Each year the State
Legislature determines the level of funding to Counties
participating in the State Trial Court Funding Program
and allocates State funds to each County's Superior Court.
However, the County retained responsibility for providing
private defense attorneys to indigent persons charged with
a crime. Therefore, San Francisco's Indigent Defense
Program is funded by the General Fund and the requested
supplemental appropriation would be funded from the
General Fund Reserve.
2 According to Mr. Neal Taniguchi of the Superior Court. Indigent Defense Program expenditures lag
3 months behind increased caseload due to delays in private attorney billings and reimbursements.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
in
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Neal Tamguchi of the Superior Court,
between June of 1998 and October of 1999, Indigent
Defense Program expenditures for private defense
attorneys increased due to increased caseload. During that
time period, approximately one-quarter of the indigent
individuals who would have been assigned an attorney from
the Public Defender's Office were instead assigned a
private defense attorney through the Indigent Defense
Program. The Superior Court has four courtrooms that hold
arraignment hearings for individuals charged with crimes.
For the specified time period, of these four courtrooms
(Departments 9. 10, 11, and I'D the Public Defender's Office
assigned attorneys to Departments 9. 10, and 12. but did
not have sufficient staff to assign attorneys to Department
11. Therefore, indigent individuals who had arraignment
hearings in Departments 9. 10, and 12 were assigned an
attorney from the Public Defender's Office, and indigent
individuals who had arraignment hearings in Department
11 wore assigned private attorneys through the Indigent
Defense Program. The Public Defender's Office received 9
additional staff (8 attorneys and 1 private investigator) to
represent indigent individuals in the FY 1999-2000 budget,
and as of October 1, 1999, was able to provide attorneys for
indigent individuals with arraignment hearings in
Department 11. Therefore, since October 1, 1999. the
Indigent Defense Program provides private defense
attorneys to indigent individuals if the Public Defender
determines that a conflict of interest exists, but no longer
provides private defense attorney- to indigent individuals
arraigned in Department 11.
As shown in the Attachment, provided by the Superior
Court, in FY 1998-99. the Indigent Defense Program paid
for 5.023 cases, which is 902 cases, or 21.9 percent, greater
than the 4.212 cases paid in FY 1997-98. Mr. Taniguchi
states that the projected number of cases in FY 1999-2000
is 3.980. According to Mr. Taniguchi. although the Public
Defender did not assign attorneys to Department 11 until
October 1, 1999, expenditures for the first three months of
FY" 1999-2000 (July 1. 1999 through September 30, 1999)
were less than anticipated. Therefore, the Superior Court
does not expect increased expenditures, resulting from
increased Indigent Defense Program caseload, in FY" 1999-
2000. According to Mr. Taniguchi. the proposed
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
31
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
supplemental appropriation is due solely to the carry-over
of unpaid private attorneys' bills from FY 1998-99.
As shown in the Attachment, in FY 1998-99 the Court
overspent the $5,900,000 budget for indigent defense by
$254,000. According to the Controller's Office, the
additional $254,000 expenditure for indigent defense was
funded from surpluses within the FY 1998-99 Superior
Court budget. Additionally, Mr. Taniguchi states in the
Attachment, that $140,000 in defense attorneys' bills in FY
1998-99 were submitted to the Controller but not
authorized for payment because the appropriation had been
exhausted. Mr. Taniguchi estimates that an additional
$360,000 to $460,000 in unpaid defense attorney bills were
carried into FY 1999-2000 and paid in the first three
months of the fiscal year with the FY 1999-2000
appropriation. Mr. Taniguchi states that the expected
shortfall for FY 1999-2000 is $511,000 (estimated
expenditures of $6,411,000 less $5,900,000 approved
budget).
2. The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance also
requests $50,000 to fund a proposed $5 per hour rate
increase for private investigators, working with private
defense attorneys through the Indigent Defense Program,
increasing the hourly rate for private investigators from
$35 per hour to $40 per hour, an increase of 14.3 percent.
The requested $50,000 supplemental rate increase would
fund the $5 per hour rate increase for 10,000 hours of
private investigator time for January 1, 2000 through June
30, 2000. According to Mr. Taniguchi, the $35 per hour
rate for private investigators was established in 1984 and
has not been increased since.
Based on data provided by Mr. Taniguchi, the Indigent
Defense Program expended $892,625 for 25,503 hours of
private investigator time in FY 1997-98 and $963,790 for
27,536 hours of private investigator time in FY 1998-99, an
8 percent increase. As previously noted, the Superior Court
expects that Indigent Defense Program caseload and
expenditures in FY 1999-2000 will return to the caseload
and expenditure level of FY 1997-98. Therefore, if private
investigator hours in FY 2000-2001 are equal to private
investigator hours in FY 1997-98 (25,503), the City's
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
32
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
increased costs resulting from the proposed $5 per hour
rate increase would be approximately $127,515 in FY 2000-
2001.
According to additional data provided by Mr. Tamguchi, the
average hourly salary, including fringe benefits, for Public
Defender Investigators (which includes both Investigators
and Senior Investigators) in FY 1999-2000 is $31.87. Mr
Tamguchi states that Public Defender's Office estimated
indirect and administrative costs equal >_'^ 75 per hour,
resulting in a total hourly Public Defender Investigator rate
of $54.62 per hour. Mr. Tamguchi states that the Public
Defender Investigator rate of per hour (which
includes both salary and fringe benefits as well as
administrative costs) is 56 percent greater than the current
$35 per hour rate paid to private investigators through the
Indigent Defense Program. Additionally, the estimated
$54.62 per hour r 16.5 percent greater than the
proposed $40 per hour rate. Mr. Tamguchi was unable to
provide data on rates paid to private investigators in other
Bay Area Counties or by private sector attorneys.
3. The Budget Analyst has reviewed the actual and
projected expenditures for indigent defense on a monthly
basis for Fiscal Years 1998-99 (12 months) and 1999-2000
(seven months; from July 1. 1999 through January 31.
2000). However, as explained in Mr. Taniguchi's
memorandum (Attachment) the Trial Court is unable to
provide an accounting of the number or the amount of such
billings that were not paid in FY 1998-99 and held over to
be paid from FY 1999-2000 appropriations. Therefore, it is
not possible to determine whether or not the Trial Court's
projections are reasonable at this time.
The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that one half of
the $508,000 amount requested for indigent defense
expenditures, or $254,000. be reserved pending additional
data for such actual expenditures during the remainder of
FY* 1999-2000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Recommendation: 1. Approve the supplemental appropriation in the
requested amount of $508,000 for indigent defense
expenditures, placing $254,000 on reserve.
2. Approval of the $50,000 portion of the request to pay for
a proposed increase in the hourly rate for private
investigators from $35 to $40 per hour is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
FEB 24 '00 04 :52PM
P. 1/2
Attachment
Superior Court of California Pape x of :
County of San Francisco
ALAN CARLSON NEALl TaniQUCH,
Cuff Executive O"ico» Cho= Fee*. Manage*
February 24. 2000
TO: Severln Campbell, Budget Analyst's Office
FROM: Neal Taniguchi, Chief Fiscal Officer
RE: Indigent defense expenditure data
You will find attached historical data collected from the City's accounting system on indigent aefense
expenditures. The data shows the following:
• We expect the indigent defense budget to run a shortfall of slightly over $500,000 for
FY1999-2000 (Estimated expenditures of $6, 41 1,000 less 55,900,000 approved buaget)
• Prior to the Public Defender conflicting ou» of Department 1 1 in March, 1 998. conflicts panel
expenditures were decreasing Note the average monthly expenditures for each fiscal year
In FT1 995-96, the Court spent approximately $628,000 per month. In FY1 996-97, the Court
spent 5522.000 per month. In FY1 997-98. prior to June. 1998, the Court spent 5489, 0C0 pc
month. In FY1998-99, including June of 1998, the Court spent 5614,000 per month Thus far
through November, 1999, the Court spent at rate of 5689,000 per month. Tne increase m the
monthly average is due to the Public Defender conflicting out of Department 11.
• Expenditures always seem to decrease during December or January.
• The Court always incurs an 'expenditure spike' at the end of the fiscal year. Invariably,
attorneys and court staff rush to process their billings prior to the end of the fiscal year, either
to expedite payment, to compensate for cases not billed ; n a timely manner, or to shift
expenses to the current fiscal year (as was the case in FY1 997-98) In FY 1998-99 the CcLrt
ended up shifting expenditures to this fiscal year due tc a shortfall in tne appropriation.
• Approximately 5500,000 to $600,000, In FY1 998*99 attorney bills related to the Department
11 issue, were pushed over into FY 1999-2000 for payment Approximately $140,000 of these
bills were paid witn FY1 999-2000 appropriations because we ran short of 98-99 funomg, and
the Controller's Office ceased authorizing oayments midway through June. To the best of our
knowledge, the remaining $360,000 to $460,000 were bills received by the Court in FY1998-
99, but did not submit for payment until FY1 999-2000.
• Note that in FY1998-99 our conflicts appropriation was 55.9 million However, the Controller's
Office allowed us to overspend the budget by $254,000, before it ceased authorizing
payments in mid-June.
400 McAllister Street • Room 20G
San Francisco. CA 9*132-4 514
ntanigucbi@sftc.org
35
FEB 24 '00 04:52PM P. 2/2
Attachment
Page 2 of 2
• Through January 31 , 2000. the Court incurred actual expenditures of $4,21 1 ,624, or 71 % of
the budget of 55,900,000. The Court will spend on indigent defense an estimated $2,200,000,
or approximately $440,000 per month, over the remaining five months of the fiscal year.
In addition, you requested an estimate of the increase in criminal cases assigned to conflicts counsel in
Department 1 1 . The Court has not been able to determine the exact increase in cases, since our
database only tracks attorney bills paid and total numbers of cases. However, we do know that attorney's
billed for approximately 1,020 more cases in FY1 998-99, than in previous years. This is the aggregate
data we have:
1996-97 3,992 cases paid
1997-98 4.121 cases paid
1 998-99 5,023 cases paid
1999-00 3,980 projected cases paid
1 999-00 1 .943 actual cases paid through December 31. 1 999
If you should have questions about the expenditure and caseload data, please call me at 551-5727.
36
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 3 - File 00-0242
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Budget:
Comments:
Mayor's Office
Ordinance appropriating $60,000 from the General Fund
Reserve for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
Historical Society of Northern California.
$60,000
General Fund Reserve
The proposed ordinance would appropriate $60,000 to the
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical
Society of Northern California ("Historical Society") to
provide for a shortfall in the Historical Society's FY 1999-
2000 budget.
Attachment I, provided by the Historical Society, contains
the Historical Society's bu IT 1999-2000. This
budget contains all of the Historical Society's revenue
sources for FY 1999-2000, including all revenues
previously allocated by the City to the Historical Society.
Attachment II, provided by the Historical Society,
includes a FY 1999-2000 expenditure budget for the
proposed grant appropriation.
1. According to Ms. Susan Stryker. Executive Director of
the Gay. Lesbian. Bisexual, and Transgender Historical
Society, the Historical Society was founded in 1985 as a
community-based archive to collect, preserve, and
promote an active knowledge of the history, arts, and
culture of sexually diverse communities in Northern
California.
2. As shown in the Historical Society's attached budget
for FY 1999-2000, Ms. Stryker states that estimated
expenditures of S287.950 exceed estimated revenues of
$227,950 by $60,000. This shortfall has been caused by
increased salary and rent costs, according to Ms. Stryker.
Therefore, the Historical Society is requesting that the
City's General Fund make up the projected shortfall of
$60,000.
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
3. Ms. Stryker states that the Historical Society intends
to secure full funding in its next fiscal year through its
increased fundraising capacity, increased donor
contributions, higher fees for services provided by the
Historical Society, and greater diversification of its
funding streams so that it will not need to request any
financial support from the General Fund.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment
Paee 1 of '<.
Provisional Budget, Calendar Year 2000 (as of 2.2.00)
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California
Projected Revenues
Earned Income
Photocopy sales
S 1,500
Reprographic sales
S 500
Research Services
S 500
Investment income
S 1,000
Sublets
S 500
Royalties
S 2,500
Newsletter Sales/Ads
S 500
Memberships
>: l.ooo
Donations/Contributions
$40,000
Events
Spring Art Affair (gross) $33,000
Fall Awards Dinner (gross) $20,000
Misc. Other $ 2,500
Grants (Awarded)
1999 San Francisco Fd.
1999Friends/Fd. SFPL
1999 Haas. Jr. Fund
1999 Horizons Fd.
1999 Cat. Council. Hum.
1999 Creative Work Fund
2000 Inst. Sex. Minorities
in the Military
Grants (Unidentified/Unsecured)
CCSF Funds
CY 1999 GFTA
CY 1999 Supplemental
2000 Supplemental
SI 5,000
$15,000
$ 3,500 (restricted-strategic planning)
S 2.350 (restncted-fiscally sponsored project)
$ 3.400 ( restricted-fiscal ly sponsored project)
S 200 i restncted-fiscally sponsored project)
$ 350 (restricted-World War II Records Project)
$30,000
SI 5.000
$20,000
$60,000
TOTAL:
S287.950
Profit/Loss = SO.OO
Source: GLBT Historical Society of Northern California
Attachment I
Page 2 of 2
Provisional Budget, Calendar Year 2000 (as of 2.2.00)
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California
Projected Expenses
Rent
S 68,250
Utilities
$ 3,000
Maint./Repairs
S 1,800
Telephone/Communications
S 3,500
Postage and Shipping
S 4,000
Insurance
S 3,000
Supplies/Equip: Office
S 9,600
Supplies/Equip: Archives
S 2,000
Supplies/Equip: Exhibitions
$ 5,000
Supplies/Equip: Oral History
$ 1,500
Salaries and Benefits
$101,150
Consultants/contract employees
$ 42,000
Accounting/Bookkeeping
$ 5,000
Spring Art Affair Expenses
S 23,000
Fall Awards Dinner Expenses
S 11,000
Auto/Travel
S 2,250
Miscellaneous
S 1 ,900
TOTAL
5287,950
02/22/2008 19:46
4157775576
GLHS
Attachment II
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity Febnjary ft 2qqo
ATTN: Alan Gibson
Mr. Gibson:
Please find below a break -down of expenses for the $60,000 in supplemental funds we have recently
requested (Item 3-File 00-0242). which goes before the Finance and Labor Committee on Wednesday,
March 1. 2000.
As you may recall, we have requested a total of $80,000 in supplemental funds from the City in FY 99-00,
in addiuon to the $15,000 awarded by Grants from the Arts (Hotel Tax Fund) in the current fiscal year. The
$15,000 from GFTA is made available on a reimbursement basis for general operating expenses, including
salaries and overhead. One half of this amount ($7500) can be billed for expenses incurred July 1-
December 31, and we are in the process of preparing those invoices. We will bill for the other balf of the
year later in the spring. $20,000 was awarded to us in August 1999 in the first round of supplemental budget
disbursements. A member of our Board of Directors, Galen Leung, who happens to be a contracts manager
in the City Public Health Department, is finalizing the terms of our contract with the City for the award of
this $20,000. Budget details of this award are being worked out separately from the request before you now
Our rationale for approaching the City at this time was to help our organization weather a drastic (.85%)
increase in our rent that took effect in September, 1999. We asked for $80,000 in total funds based on our
projections for rent and utilities for an entire calendar year. Our actual annual rent for calendar year 2000
will be $71,814 60. This does not include phone or internet services, office systems maintenance, or
dtrecdy related administrative overhead costs. Clearly, the $80,000 requested will be spent on the expenses
for which we have requested supplemental budget funds.
We intend to use the $60,000 we are currently requesting to pay the bulk of our rent and uoliDes for FY 99-
00, which total $63,961 65. The line items are divided into two sections. First. July 1, 1999-October 31,
1999. when are monthly expenses were in flux. Second, November 1. 1999- June 30, 2000. the end of
CCSF FY 99-00.
Period: July 1. 1999-October 31. 1999
Basement Storage Area: $800 (4 months @$200/mo.)
Utilities (gas/electric): S1200 (4 months @ S300/mo.. av.)
Offsite Exhibit Storage: $ 665.85 (3 months [Aug Oct] @ $221.45/mo.)
Office/Achives Rent: $2762.75 (July)
Office/Achives Rent: $2762 75 (Auguit)
(2 weeks free rent at end of lease]
Office/Achives Rent; $5262.60 (September 15-October 14)
Office/Achives Rent: $263130 (October 15-October 31)
SUBTOTAL: $16,085.25
$ 200 /mo
$ 300 /mo. av.
$ 221.95 /mo.
$ 5262.60 /mo.
Period: November 1. 1999-June 30. 2000
Basement Storage
Uuliies (gas/electric)
O.fstte Exhibit Storage
Office/ Archives Rent
= $5984.55/mo. x 8 mos.
SUBTOTAL: $47,876.40
Sincerely,
^^A^/^V -
Susan Stryker
Executive Director
TOTAL: $63,961.65
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4242S0. San Francisco. CA 94142
Research Room, Exhibit Space, Archives & Offices: 973 Market St.. Suite 400. San Francisco. CA 94103
Phone: (415) 777-5455 Fax: (415) 777-5576 E-maiL glhsnc@aol.com Web: wwm glhs org
City and County of £an Francisco "
Meeting Minutes
Finance and Labor Committee
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano
Clerk: Mary Red
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
94102-4689
Friday, March 03, 2000
1:00 PM
Special Meeting
City Hall, Room 263
Members Present: Tom Ammiano, Mark Leno.
Meeting Convened
The meeting convened at 1:07 p.m. Supervisor Ammiano appointed Supervisor Leno to the Finance and
Labor Committee for today only.
000352 [Emergency winter shelter for homeless gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender youth|
Supervisor Ammiano
Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the amount of 554,290 to the Department of Public Health to
fund an emergency winter shelter for homeless gay/lesbiaatnsexuaL/transgender youth.
2/28/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee Sponsor requests this matter be heard at a Special committee
meeting on March 3, 2000 at 1 .00 p.m
Heard in Committee Speakers Monique Zmuda. Chief Financial Officer, Department of Public Health.
Supervisor Leno; Jakkee Bryson; Sylvia Kundig; Harry Alieo. Noe Valley Merchants Association; Jerry
Steiner; Mia, Mia's Flower Shop, Gracie Atherton, Noe Community Work Group; Darlene Crisp; Anastasia
Yovanopoulos; Tawnee Walliry, Metropolitan Community Church. Supervisor Ammiano. Ted Lakey. Deputy
City Attorney.
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Ammiano, Leno
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:52 p.m.
DOCUMENTS DEPT
JAN 2 4 200!
SAN FRANCISCO
p UBLIC LIBRARY
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at S: 50 P.M on WOO
CITY AND COUNTY
OFSANFR
J30ARD OF SUPERVISORS
Susan Horn
Government Documents Section
Main Library
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
MAR - 3 2000
BUDGET ANALYST
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
February 29, 2000
TO: y Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: ^Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: .March 3, 2000 Special Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 1 - File 99-00-0352
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Department of Public Health
Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the
amount of $54,290 for the Department Of Public
Health to fund an emergency winter shelter for
homeless gay/lesbian/transgender youth.
$54,290
General Fund Reserve
On January 24, 2000 the Board of Supervisors
approved a supplemental appropriation for $54,290
to fund an emergency winter shelter program
targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer
and questioning young adults, and placed the
entire $54,290 on reserve, pending the receipt of
additional budget and staffing information. The
proposed program would provide nine to ten beds
per night at the Metropolitan Community Church
located at 1508 Church Street, near the
intersection of 26 th Street in Noe Valley for the
three month period beginning in early March and
ending in early June of 2000.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 3, 2000 Special Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget: As shown in the Attachment to this report,
provided by Ms. Anne Okubo of DPH, the proposed
total budget of $54,290 provides for personnel costs
of $35,390, start up costs of $3,300 and operating
expenses of $15,400.
Comments: 1. Mr. Eric Politzer of Ark of Refuge, Inc. previously
reported that Ark of Refuge provided emergency
winter shelter for approximately 30 young adults
per night at 1025 Howard Street in the South of
Market area during the Winter of 1997-98, in
response to El Nino and the displacement of
homeless persons from Golden Gate Park.
According to Mr. Politzer this FY 1997-98 shelter
program, which extended for three months, was
funded through a contract with the Department of
Human Services. Mr. Politzer further advises that
Ark of Refuge provided emergency winter shelter
for approximately 30 young adults per night at the
Eureka Valley Recreation Center on Collingwood
Street in the Castro neighborhood during the
Winter of 1998-99, at a cost of approximately
$70,000 for a ten-week program. This FY 1998-99
program was funded through a contract with the
Mayor's Office of Community Development.
According to Mr. Politzer, Ark of Refuge was
selected on a sole source basis for the subject
project because of their experience in providing
similar projects during the past two winters.
2. DPH has now entered into a new sole source
contract with Ark of Refuge, Inc. to provide the
requested services. As a result, Ms. Okubo reports
that the proposed emergency shelter could open
immediately, once the subject requested funds are
approved. According to Ms. Okubo, Ark of Refuge
also has a current contract with DPH to provide
residential substance abuse treatment for HIV
women at a cost of $282,480 annually.
3. As shown in the Attachment, the proposed
program will provide 12 staff under the proposed
temporary three-month contract. In addition, as
shown in the Attachment, the costs for the rent at
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 3, 2000 Special Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
the Metropolitan Community Church have been
reduced from $1,000 per month under the original
supplemental appropriation request to $500 per
month under the proposed release of reserve, a
reduction of $500 per month, or $1,500 over the
three month period.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds.
Harvey M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Matthew Hymel
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3
Attachment
Department of Public Health
Funds Held on Reserve
Emergency Shelter for Homeless Gay Youths
TitJa
Lead Counselor
Counselor
Janitor
Van Driver
Shelter Director
Executive Director
Project Manager
Finance Officer
Volunteer Coordinator
Subtotal 35,590
Start Up Personnel Coats (1) 3 300
Operating Expenses
Rent (2) | 500
Utilities 1_225
Building Maintenance 2.250
Insurance 750
Printing and Reproduction -,00
Advertise Job Openings 700
Hourly
FTFs
Hours
Rate
Amount
2.0
538
5 15.00
5 16.128
2.0
252
$ 13.00
6.552
1.0
252
5 1000
2,520
1.0
252
5 10.00
2.520
3.600
750
1.080
1,000
1.440
Food
3,780
Laundry 1.875
Office Supplies 300
Supplies for Residents 50o
Janitorial Supplies 750
Materials & Supplies (3) 1 370
Subtotal Operating Expenses 15,400
Total $ 54,290
(1) Includes staff training, proposal development, community & otner meetings.
(2) Rent @ 5500/month x 3 months
(3) Blankets © 5200, pillows © 5250. pillow casas © $70, towels © 5250, phone ©5100.
phone installation © 5250, kitchen supplies © 5250
>ia»<nuwoontfiion.iMur <a irr«/oo
City and County of San Francisco
Meeting Minutes
Finance and Labor Committee
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano
Clerk: Mary Red
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
94102^689
Wednesday, March 08, 2000
10:00 AM
Regular Meeting
City Hall, Room 263
Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano.
Members Absent: Sue Bierman.
Meeting Convened
The meeting convened at 10:08 a.m.
REGULAR AGENDA
DOCUMENTS DEPT
MM I 22®
SANFR ANC|SCC
PU BLIC library
000169 [Management Audit Report, Clerk of the Board]
Supervisor Ammiano
Hearing to consider the results of the management audit report conducted for the Clerk of the Board.
1/24/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board;
Super\'isor Ammiano; Supervisor Yee; Shelli Moreda, TechProse; Anastasia Yovanopoulos.
FILED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000384 [Appropriating $502,008, Department of Elections, for new Vote Scanning System]
Supervisor Newsom
Ordinance appropriating 5502,008 from the General Fund Reserve for temporary salaries, minor furnishings
and equipment, for the new Vote Scanning System at the Department of Elections, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
(Controller)
(Fiscal Impact)
3/1/00, DIVIDED Heard in Committee Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Naomi Nishioka, Department of Flections;
Supervisor Yee, Ed Hamngton, Controller; Supervisor Newsom Divided from File 000244.
3/1/00, CONTINUED Continued to March 8, 2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst; Carol Roos. Legislative Analyst; Naomi
Nishioka. Department of Elections.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 1 2:2-1 I'M on ! V ill)
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting MUiutet
Man I, H, 2000
000242 (Appropriating funds to Gay and Lesbian Historical Society!
Supervisors I rim. Katz, Ammiano, Bierman
Ordinance appropriating $60,000 of General Fund Reserve for a one-time grant to the Gay and Lesbian
Historical Society of Northern California, through the Mayor's Office, for fiscal year 1999-2000.
2/7/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and l abor Committee
3/1/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 8, 2000.
Sponsor requests that item be tabled
TABLED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000235 (Approving the concession leases of Travelex America. Inc. to operate two (2) MM facilities at the
Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of S240.500 for each lease|
Resolution approving two Automated Idler Machine Leases for the existing and New. International Terminal
Buildings between Travelex America. Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission. (Airport Commission)
2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee
3/1/00, CONTINUED Continued to March 8. 2000
Continued to March 22, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000236 (Approving the concession lease of Travelex America. Inc. to operate a foreign currency exchange office
at the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of S4.1 27.500)
Resolution approving the Foreign Currency Exchange Lease in the Existing and New International Terminal
Buildings between Travelex America. Inc and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission. (Airport Commission)
2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and 1 abor Committee
3/1/00. CONTINUED. Continued to March 8. 2000.
Continued to March 22, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000268 | Approving the concession lease of Host International. Inc. for a specialty store and newsstand located at
the North Terminal Hub of the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of S2.550.000|
Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession lease between Host International.
Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport
Commission)
2/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
3/1/00, CONTINUED Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Jon Ballesteros. Airport Commission.
Supervisor Ammiano; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney Continued to March 8. 2000
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Jon Ballesteros. Airport Commission:
Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; Carl Cramer. Living Wage Coalition Continued to March 15. 2000
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 12:24 PH on } V W
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2000
000318 |Approving award of New International Terminal Fine Dining Restaurant Lease to GQC Holdings, Inc.
at a minimum annual rent of $134,300 for the first year.)
Resolution approving New International Terminal Fine Dining Restaurant Lease to GQC Holdings, Inc., a
certified disadvantaged business enterprise, and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through
its Airport Commission. (Airport Commission)
2/16/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Continued to March 22, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000289 [Release of Funds, Fire Department]
Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Fire Department^ 1986 Fire Protection Bond interest earnings,
File 101-95-61: Ordinance No. 127-96 ), in the amount of $59,120 to fund the emergency repairs of the City's
Auxiliary Water System (AWSS) facilities located at Third/Evans Streets, and Evans/Selby Streets. (Fire
Department)
2/14/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee. Continued to March 15.
2000; no department representative present.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M.
991413 [Appropriation, $175,000, Rent Arbitration Board Fact-Based Socio Economic Study]
Supervisor Brown
Ordinance appropriating $175,000, Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board to fund a fact-based
socio-economic study of the effects of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration
Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 37), for fiscal year 1999-2000.
(Companion measure to File 991412.)
8/16/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 9/15/1999.
10/13/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Joe Grubb, Executive Director, Rent Stablization and Arbitration Board.
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Brown; June Gutfleisch, Supervisor Bierman's Aide; Supervisor
Ammiano; Anastasia Yovanopoulos; Carmen Ramirez; Jose Morales; Carol Arnold; Al Rose, FDR Disabled
Club; Brook Turner, Coalition for Better Housing; Michelle Gordon; Marian Halley; Garry Briggs. Andrew
Long; George Wong; Professor Donald Gibbs; UCSF; Tom Ramm; John Malone. Small Property Owners of
S.F.; Jim Fabris, Association of Realtors; Calvin Welch; Phillip Brady. Youth Activist; Kathleen McNamara,
Peter Chin; El Nino, Haight Ashbury Street Tenants Alliance; Norman Rolfe; Teresa Gonio; Marilyn
Cosentino; Randy Shaw, Director, Tenderloin Housing Clinic; Kim Schlater; Linda Dunn. Peter Odlon: Jim
Hewitt, Senior Housing Action Collaborative; Peter Lewis; Marie Pennington, Tenderloin Heights. Maureen
Reem; Miguel Wooding; Rebecca Graft, Housing Rights Advocates: Garrett Jenkins. North oj Market Housing
Coalition; Teresa Day; Bill Quan; Matt Brown. St. Peters Housing Committee. Ted Gullicksen, SI' Tenants
Union; Jack McGoldrick, Richmond District; Sarah Short. Tenderloin Housing ( 'link, Winer Tucker. Lou
Legnitto; Russ Charpentier; Janan New, S.F. Apartment Association Amended to place SI 75.000 on reserve
AMENDED.
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 12:24 PM on IV'OO
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minute, March H, 2000
Ordinance appropriating $175,000, Residential Rent Stabilization and Abitration Board to fund a fact-based
socio-economic study of the effects of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Abitration
Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 37), for fiscal year 1999-2000, placing $175,000 on reserve.
(Companion measure to File 991412.)
To Board March 20. 2000.
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following xote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
991412 |Study of Rent Control Ordinance Socio-Economic Effects; Requiring Findings|
Supervisors Brown, Teng, Kaufman
Ordinance amending Administrative Code "Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance" (Rent
Control Ordinance) by adding a new Section 37. 6A to provide that the Residential Rent Stabilization and
Arbitration Board shall obtain a neutral comprehensive fact-based socio-economic study of housing in San
Francisco, including a study of whether there exists a housing shortage constituting a "crisis." and, if so,
identifying the dimensions of that crisis; providing a goal of completing the study within one year; providing
that proposed substantive amendments to the rent control ordinance must be supported by a fact-based study.
and, findings in support of this ordinance.
(Adds Section 376A.)
8/16/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE lo Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 9 15 1999
10/13/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR Heard in Committee Speakers In Support Teresa Gonio
2/7/00, SUBSTITUTED Submitted by Supervisor Brown in Board, bearing new title
2/7/00. ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expo
Heard in Committee Speakers Joe Grubb. Executive Director, Rent Stahhzatwn and Arbitration Board.
Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Supervisor Brown, June Gutfleisch. Supervisor Bierman's Aide. Supervisor
Ammiano: Anastasia Yovanopoulos. Carmen Ramirez. Jose Morales; Carol Arnold. Al Rose. FDR Disabled
Club; Brook Turner. Coalition for Better Housing Michelle Gordon Marian Hallev. Garry Briggs. Andrew
Long; George Wong; Professor Donald Gibbs; L'CSF: Tom Ramm; John Malone Small Property- Owners of
S.F.. Jim Fabris. Association of Realtors Calvin Welch, Phillip Brady. Youth Activist Kathleen \h\amara.
Peter Chin; El Nino. Haight Ashbury Street Tenants Alliance: Norman Rolfe. Teresa Gonio. Marilyn
Cosenttno. Randy Shaw; Director. Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Kim Schlater. Linda Dunn. Peter Odlon Jim
Hewitt. Senior Housing Action Collaborative. Peter Lewis. Marie Pennington. Tenderloin Heights. Maureen
Reem; Miguel Wooding; Rebecca Graft. Housing Rights Advocates, Garrett Jenkins. North ut Market Housing
Coalition. Teresa Day; Bill Quan; Malt Brown. St. Peters Housing Committee. Ted Gullicksen. S F Tenants
Union; Jack McGoldnck. Richmond District; Sarah Short. Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Nancy Tucker. Lou
Legnitto; Russ Charpentier; Janan New, S.F. Apartment Association Amendment of the Whole relating to
only the study of housing in San Francisco.
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE \\ HOLE BEARIM, M W TITLE.
Ordinance directing the Executive Director of the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board to
obtain a neutral comprehensive fact-based socio-economic study of housing in San Francisco; providing a goal
of completing the study within one year: providing that substantive amendments to various housing ordinances
and policies must be supported by findings of fact: and. findings in support of this ordinance
To Board March 20. 2000.
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following \ote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 1:04 p m
City and Count) of San Francisco * Printed at 12:24 PM on 3 9 DO
CITY AND COUNTY
Susan Horn
Government Documents Section
Main Library
OF SAN Fl
,BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX C415) 252-0461
March 2, 2000
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: .Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: ^larch 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 2 - File 00-0384
Note: This item was severed from File 00-0244 by the Finance and
Labor Committee at its March 1. 2000 meeting.
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Department of Elections
Ordinance appropriating $502,008 from the
General Fund Reserve for temporary salaries,
minor furnishings, and equipment for the new
optical scan vote count system at the Department
of Elections, for FY 1999-2000.
$502,008
General Fund Reserve
The proposed ordinance would appropriate
$502,008 to the Department of Elections to allow it.
to (a) purchase ancillary information systems
hardware and software upgrades, (b) purchase
furniture and other infrastructure upgrades, and
(c) hire additional temporary- staffing required by
the Department's new optical scan vote count
system.
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
MAR - 6 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
Comments:
The attached budget in the amount of $502,008
was provided by the Department of Elections.
1. According to Ms. Naomi Nishioka of the
Department of Elections, the Department of
Elections plans to purchase a new optical scan vote
count system for use in the November 7, 2000
general election. According to Ms. Nishioka, the
new system is expected to be more efficient, permit
faster voting and vote counting, and speed up
write-in processing and counting of absentee ballots
once signatures have been verified. A vendor.
Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S), was
selected in March of 1999 following (a) a Request
for Proposals process, (b) a customer service survey
of selected San Francisco voters, and (c) a trial of
the optical scan vote count system in 50 precincts
during the November 1998 election. Mr. David
Shipper of the City Attorney's Office states that
finalization of a contract between the City and
ES&S is awaiting approval of the funding for the
acquisition of the new vote system. As the pending
ES&S contract is for less than ten years and less
than $10,000,000, such a contract will not require
Board of Supervisors approval, according to Mr.
Shipper.
2. Ms. Nishioka states that the budget for the
purchase of ES&S hardware and software is as
follows:
Expenditure Items
Amount
ES&S hardware
862,000
ES&S software licenses
67,500
Non-ES&S equipment and
58.277
software
Subtotal:
i 987,777
Sales Tax @ 8.5%
253.961
TOTAL:
$3,241,738
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
3. Ms. Nishioka states that the total cost of
$3,241,738 would be funded initially by means of
equipment lease financing. Under this form of
financing, which would ensure that the equipment
is purchased in time for the November 7, 2000
General Election, a selected lender would pay
ES&S a total of $3,241,738 for the hardware and
software. The City's lease financing debt would
then be retired through annual lease purchase
payments appropriated in the Department of
Election's future annual budgets. The lease term
would be up to five years, according to Ms.
Nishioka. The City has issued a Request for
Qualifications in order to seek competitive interest
rate bids from lenders for a total amount of
$3,241,738. According to Mr. Tony Fiore of the
Purchasing Department, the Department of
Elections, the City Attorney's Office, and the
Purchasing Department are currently evaluating
the bids received from lenders for their
responsiveness and for the lenders' compliance with
the Equal Benefits Ordinance. Mr. Fiore estimates
that a contract could be signed with the selected
lender by the end of March of 2000. Ms. Nishioka
states that the initial lease purchase payments for
acquisition of the ES&S hardware and software
will be included in the Department of Elections FY
2000-2001 budget in the approximate amount of
$767,000.
4. According to Ms. Theresa Alvarez of the City
Attorney's Office, the City would have the option to
repay the lender on any payment date set forth in
the financing agreement between the lender and
the City. Such repayment would be funded by
proceeds derived from the equipment lease revenue
bonds issued by the nonprofit City and County of
San Francisco Finance Corporation in November
pursuant to the City's equipment lease revenue
program. If a lump sum repayment is made after
acquisition of the new vote count system for the
November 7, 2000 General Election, then the
equipment lease financing would act as a funding
"bridge" between the purchase of equipment in
early 2000, to ensure that it would be operational
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
in time for the November 7, 2000 General Election,
and the Finance Corporation's issuance of
equipment lease revenue bonds in November of
2000.
5. According to Ms. Nishioka, ES&S ancillary
services in the value of $145,900 would be provided
free-of-charge to the City during FY 2000-2001.
Such services would include acceptance testing of
precinct and central ballot counters; ballot
generation; vote counting; and storage, delivery,
set up, and pick up of precinct counters. Ms.
Nishioka states that between FY 2001-2002 and FY
2004-2005, ^S&S would provide equivalent
ancillary services at a cost of $794,400 under a
personal services contract between ES&S and the
City which has been approved in principle by the
( livil Service Commission but which has not yet
been signed. Funding for ES&S ancillary services
would be requested as part of the Department of
Election's annual budget appropriations according
to Ms. Nishioka.
6. Ms. Nishioka states that, in order to ensure a
smooth conversion to the new system, during FY
1999-2000 (a) ancillary information systems
hardware and software need to be upgraded at an
estimated cost of $112,200, (b) furniture and other
infrastructure need to be upgraded at an estimated
cost of $289,808, and (b) temporary- City staff with
project management skills need to be hired to
support a wide variety of planning activities at in
estimated cost of $100,000. The Attachment
contains detailed budgets in the amounts of
$112,200 for the information systems hardware
and software upgrades, and $289,808 for furniture
and other infrastructure upgrades. The Budget
Analyst has reviewed vendor price quotations for
the equipment specified and found that the budget
amounts requested are reasonable. With regard to
the line-item budget for voting booths, the proposed
amount of $250,000 would purchase 5,303 voting
booths at an approximate cost of $47.14 per booth
(inclusive of trade-in).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
7. The attached budget also contains a $100,000
line item for temporary project management staff.
Mr. Ara Minasian of the Department of
Administrative Services states that this $100,000
budget was determined by the Elections Council
which comprises the Controller, the City
Administrator, and a representative of the City
Attorney's Office. According to Controller Ed
Harrington, the Elections Council strongly
recommends funding for necessary project
management and critical technical resources to
ensure that the new optical scan vote count system
is implemented successfully by the November 7,
2000 general election. Mr. Harrington adds that
details on such project management staffing will be
identified during the remainder of FY 1999-2000
and specifically enumerated in the proposed FY
2000-2001 budget.
Recommendations: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Actachmerv
Department of Elections
Voting System Replacement Project Budget for FY 99-00
(excluding voter registration scanning equipment)
Information Systems Hardware and Software
Quantity
Price
Amount
j Network Server Equipment
I Server
1
3 20,000
$ 30.000
Server Rack
1
3,000
3.000
Server Rack Conversion Kit
1
500
500
Memory Upgrade - Existing Server
4
400
1.600
, Memory Upgrade - Vote Count
3
250
750
Subtotal
35.850
Desktop Computers
Computers
40
1,100
44.000
Laptops
6
3.500
21.000
Subtotal
65,000
Monitors
Regular- 17"
17
250
4.250
Flat Screen AV Counter
5
900
4.500
Subtotal
8.750
Misc Hardware
Projectors Screens
2
300
600
ZIP Drive. CDRW Drive
1
1.000
1.000
Subtotal
1.600
Software
Misc Software Upgrades
1
1.000
1.000
Subtotal
1,000
Subtotal - IS Hardware and Software
112,200
Other Furnishings
Voting Booths
250.000
Op-Contract / Data Entry Workstations
12
29.563
Absentee Ballot Cages
2
220
440
AbsenteeA/RC Carts
5
261
1,305
Absentee Ballot Sealer
1
4.000
4.000
Absentee Ballot Sorting Bins
2
500
1.000
Absentee Letter Opener Attachment
1
3.000
3.000
VRC Storage Trays
100
5
500
Subtotal - Other Furnishings
289,808
Project Management
100.000
Total Project Budget for FY 99-00
$502,008
3/1/00
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 3 - File 00-0242
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its
meeting of March 1, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Budget:
Comments:
Mayor's Office
Ordinance appropriating $60,000 from the General Fund
Reserve for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
Historical Society of Northern California.
$60,000
General Fund Reserve
The proposed ordinance would appropriate $60,000 to the
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical
Society of Northern California ("Historical Society") to
provide for a shortfall in the Historical Society's FY 1999-
2000 budget.
Attachment I, provided by the Historical Society, contains
the Historical Society's budget for FY 1999-2000. This
budget contains all of the Historical Society's revenue
sources for FY 1999-2000, including all revenues
previously allocated by the City to the Historical Society.
Attachment II, provided by the Historical Society,
includes a FY 1999-2000 expenditure budget for the
proposed grant appropriation.
1. According to Ms. Susan Stryker, Executive Director of
the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical
Society, the Historical Society was founded in 1985 as a
community-based archive to collect, preserve, and
promote an active knowledge of the history, arts, and
culture of sexually diverse communities in Northern
California.
2. As shown in the Historical Society's attached budget
for FY 1999-2000, Ms. Stryker states that estimated
expenditures of $287,950 exceed estimated revenues of
$227,950 by $60,000. This shortfall has been caused by
increased salary and rent costs, according to Ms. Stryker.
Therefore, the Historical Society is requesting that the
City's General Fund make up the projected shortfall of
$60,000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
3. Ms. Stryker states that the Historical Society intends
to secure full funding in its next fiscal year through its
increased fundraising capacity, increased donor
contributions, higher fees for services provided by the
Historical Society, and greater diversification of its
funding streams so that it will not need to request any
financial support from the General Fund.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
Paee 1 of 2
Provisional Budget, Calendar Year 2000 (as of 2.2.00)
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California
Projected Revenues
Earned Income
Photocopy sales
$ 1,500
Reprographic sales
5 500
Research Services
S 500
Investment income
5 1,000
Sublets
S 500
Royalties
S 2,500
Newsletter Sales/Ads
5 500
Memberships
521,000
Donations/Contributions
$40,000
Events
Spring Art Affair (gross) 533,000
Fall Awards Dinner (gross) 520,000
Misc. Other S 2,500
Grants (Awarded)
1999 San Francisco Fd.
1999 Friends/Fd.S FPL
1999 Haas, Jr. Fund
1999 Horizons Fd.
1999 Cal. Council. Hum.
1999 Creative Work Fund
2000 Inst. Sex. Minorities
in the Military
Grants (Unidentified/Unsecured)
CCSF Funds
CY 1999 GFTA
CY 1999 Supplemental
2000 Supplemental
515,000
515,000
S 3,500 (restricted-strategic planning)
S 2,350 (restricted— fiscally sponsored project)
S 3,400 (restricted— fiscally sponsored project)
S 200 (restricted— fiscally sponsored project)
5 350 (restricted- World War II Records Project)
530,000
515,000
520,000
$60,000
TOTAL: 5287,950
Profit/Loss = S0.0O
Source: GLBT Historical Societv of Northern California
Attachment I
Pap,e 2 of 2
Provisional Budget, Calendar Year 2000 (as of 2.2.00)
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California
Projected Expenses
Rent S 68.250
Utilities S 3.000
Maine/Repairs S 1.800
Telephone/Communications S 3.500
Postage and Shipping S 4,000
Insurance S 3.000
Supplies/Equip: Office S 9,600
Supplies/Equip: Archives $ 2,000
Supplies/Equip: Exhibitions S 5,000
Supplies/Equip: Oral History S 1.500
Salaries and Benefits $101,150
Consultants/contract employees $ 42,000
Accounting/Bookkeeping $ 5,000
Spring An Affair Expenses $ 23,000
Fall Awards Dinner Expenses $ 11,000
Auto/Travel $ 2.250
Miscellaneous $ 1.900
TOTAL $287,950
10
02/22/2000 19:46
4157775576
GLHS
Attachment II
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity ? ^ ^ 2qqq
ATTN: Alan Gibson
Mr. Gibson:
Please find below a break-down of expenses for the $60,000 in supplemental funds we have recently
requested (Item 3-File 00-0242), which goes before the Finance and Labor Committee on Wednesday,
March 1. 2000.
As you may recall, we have requested a total of 380,000 in supplemental funds from the City in FY 99-00.
in addition to the 515,000 awarded by Grants from the Arts (Hotel Tax Fund) in the current fiscal year. The
$15,000 from GFTA is made available on a reimbursement basis for general operating expenses, including
salaries and overhead. One half of this amount (S7500) can be billed for expenses incurred July 1-
December 3 1 , and we are in the process of preparing those invoices. We will bill for the other half of the
year later in the spring. $20,000 was awarded to us in August 1999 in the first round of supplemental budget
disbursements. A member of our Board of Directors, Galen Leung, who happens to be a contracts manager
in the City Public Health Department, is finalizing the terms of our contract with the City for the award of
this $20,000. Budget details of this award are being worked out separately from the request before you now.
Our rationale for approaching the City at this time was to help our organization weather a drastic (857c)
increase in our rent that took effect in September, 1999. We asked for $80,000 in total funds based on our
projecuons for rent and utilities for an entire calendar year. Our actual annual rent for calendar year 2000
will be $71,814.60. This does not include phone or internet services, office systems maintenance, or
diiecdy related administrative overhead costs. Clearly, the 580,000 requested will be spent on the expenses
for which we have requested supplemental budget funds.
We intend to use the $60,000 we are currently requesting to pay the bulk of our rent and utilities for FY 99-
00, which total 563,96165. The line items are divided into two sections. First, July 1, 1999-October 31,
1999, when are monthly expenses were in flux. Second, November 1, 1 999-- June 30, 2000, the end of
CCSF FY 99-00.
Penod: Julv 1, 1999-October 31, 1999
Basement Storage Area: 5 800
Utilities (gas/electric): S1200
Offsite Exhibit Storage: $ 665.85
Office/Achives Rent: S2762.75
Office/Achives Rent: S2762.75
Office/Achives Rent: $5262.60
Office/Achives Rent: 5263 1 30
Penod: November 1. 1999-lune 30, 2000
Basement Storage
Uulites (gas/electric)
Offsite Exhibit Storage
Office/ Archives Rent
$ 200
$ 300
$ 221.95
5 5262.60
(4 months @$200/mo.)
(4 months @ 5300/mo., av.)
(3 months [Aug-Oct] <§> $221.45/mo.)
(July)
(August)
[2 weeks free rent at end of lease]
(September 15-October 14)
(October 15-October 31)
SUBTOTAL: 516.085.25
/mo.
/ mo. av. "
/mo.
/mo.
= S5984.55/mo. x 8 mos. :
SUBTOTAL: $47,876.40
Sincerely,
TOTAL: $63,961.65
Susan Stryker
Executive Director
Mailing .Address: P.O. Box 424280. San Francisco, CA 94142
Research Room, Exhibit Space, Archives <ft Offices: 973 Market St., Suite 400, San Francisco. CA 94103
Phone: (415) 777-5455 Fax: (415) 777-5576 E-maiL slhsnc9aal.com Web: wwvuglhs org
11
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 4 - File 00-0235
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Leases:
Lessor:
Lessee:
.Airport
Resolution approving two new automated teller
machine leases for the new International Terminal
between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission.
New International Terminal Complex of the
Airport
The propped two new leases would provide space
in the new International Terminal for 20 to 22
automated teller machines (ATM), at ten different
locations. Travelex America, Inc. would install and
operate the proposed ATM- Travelex America, Inc.
is required to install at least two ATMs at each of
the ten locations, and has the option to install a
third ATM at two of the ten locations, resulting in a
maximum of 22 ATMs. The Airport issued two
separate leases to operate ATM- in order to provide
lease opportunities to as many companies as
possible, however, Travelex America, Inc. was the
only company to submit bid.- for the two subject
leases (See below "Description'" section).
City and County of San Francisco, acting by and
through its Airport Commission.
Travelex America. Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by Travelex America. Inc.
to the Airport:
$20,125 monthly for
$40,250 per month
annually per 1
leases.)
each lease, for a total of
for both leases (S241.500
- 183.000 annuallv for both
Annual Rental
Revenues Payable by
Travelex America, Inc.
to the Airport:
Beginning from the first year of the lease, and
through the duration of the five-year lease period.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
12
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
the base annual rent payable by Travelex America,
Inc. to the Airport includes the Minimum Annual
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, for a total of
$483,000 per year, subject to Consumer Price Index
(CPI) annual adjustments. The $483,000 total
Minimum Annual Guarantee for both leases
applies to the ten proposed ATM locations,
regardless of whether Travelex installs 20 or 22
ATMs. In addition to the Minimum Annual
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, Travelex
America. Inc. would pay to the Airport Percentage
Rent and Transaction Rent, defined as follows:
"Percentage Rent " means rent paid in addition to
and without set off against the [Minimum
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to
thirty-three percent (33%) of any Transaction
Surcharge and /or changes for Optional Uses
[defined as shown in Attachment I to this report]
approved by Director and charged to ATM
Customers who use the ATMs on the Premises.
"Transaction Rent" means rent paid in addition
to and without set off against the [Minimum
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to ten
cents ($0.10) for each Customer Use of Tenant's
ATM on the Premises except that Transaction
Rent shall not be payable with respect to 1) ATM
Customer Use as to which Percentage Rent is
payable, and 2) ATM Customer Use for which no
transaction is completed due to reject of a
customer's card or aborting by the customer of
the ATM Customer Use prior to concluding any
transaction.
According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the
Airport has not projected future revenues to be paid
by Travelex to the Airport, in addition to the
Minimum Annual Guarantee of $241,500 for each
lease, based on anticipated Percentage and
Transaction Rent payments. Mr. Rhoades advises
that estimating demand for the new ATMs and
related surcharge revenues is difficult since the
ATM- will be located in a new building, for which
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
there is no historical data for making such
forecasts.
However, according to Mr. Rhoades, Travelex
stated in its bid to the Airport that it plans to
request permission from the Airport Director to
impose a transaction surcharge on all ATM
customers, as stated in Attachment II, provided by
the Airport. Tnder the terms of the lease, Travelex
may not charge a transaction surcharge of more
than $1.50 per customer use. and Travelex would
pay the Airport 33 percent of those surcharges.
Under the terms of the lease, Travelex America,
Inc. must have written approval from the Airport
Director to impose a transaction surcharge, as
stated in the lease as follows:
Tenant shall not charge Transaction
Surcharges except as approved by Director
[emphasis added]. The Maximum amount of any
such Transaction Surcharge (hat may be
approved shall be $1.50 per Customer Use. The
amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and
a clear description of the customers to which it
applies must be posted in a clearly visible
manner on the exterior of the A TM unit, or stated
clearly through the ATMs electronic display
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue
the transaction with a Transaction Surcharge
before the Customer Use is
completed... Transaction Surcharges shall be
subject to Percentage Rent as described in the
lease.
Attachment II also contains: (a) the companies that
currently hold v ith the Airport for ATMs in
the Airport, (b) the annual Minimum Annual
Guarantees paid by each of these companies to the
Airport for the ATMs, and (c) the total combined
surcharge revenues of $315,192 paid to the Airport
by these companies for the ATM leases during
1999.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
14
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Utilities and Janitorial
Provided by Lessor:
Description:
Tenant
Improvements:
The two proposed leases would commence on
September 26, 2000. Each lease would be for a five
year period, terminating on September 25, 2005.
The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two
one-year extensions for each lease.
The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and
janitorial services.
On August 17, 1999, the Airport Commission
requested bids for two Automated Teller Machine
Leases for the new International Terminal
Building. Subsequently, on December 21, 1999, the
Airport Commission adopted a resolution awarding
the two leases to Travelex America, Inc., the sole
bidder (Resolution No. 99-0458). According to Mr.
Rhoades, the sole bidder, Travelex America, Inc.,
submitted a Minimum Annual Guarantee bid of
$241,500. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport
issued Invitations to Bid for the two ATM leases to
141 firms. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport
decided to issue two separate leases, to operate 10
to 11 ATMs each, in order to provide lease
opportunities to as many companies as possible.
Attachment II also explains why the Airport
received only one bid to operate the ATMs at the
Airport.
Under the two proposed leases, Travelex America,
Inc. would install and operate 20 to 22 ATMs, at
ten different locations throughout the new
International Terminal. The ATMs would operate
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Lessee would be required, at its sole cost, to
design and construct the ATM enclosures, including
all fixtures, furnishings and equipment necessary
to Travelex America Inc.'s operations under the
subject lease. Travelex America, Inc.'s costs for
these improvements shall not be less than $5,000
per ATM, or $100,000 to $110,000 for all 20 to 22
ATMs. This minimum of $5,000 does not include
the cost of purchasing and installing the ATMs
themselves. According to Mr. Rhoades. the Airport
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
15
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
requires a minimum of $5,000 in improvements per
ATM to ensure that Travelex America, Inc.
constructs ATM enclosures consistent with the
design, materials and quality of the new
International Terminal.
Comments: 1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 20 to Si ATM-
in the new International Terminal will be
completed by August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises
that the Airport's new International Terminal is
now scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or
three months later than the previously estimated
opening date of June 26, 2000. in order to allow the
Airport ti-ne to test the new facilities.
2. Item 5, File 00-0236 of this report to the Finance
and Labor Committee, pertains to another proposed
Airport Lease to Travelex America, Inc. to provide
Foreign <'urrcncy Exchange facilities at various
locations in the Airport.
3. In November of 1999, the voters of San Francisco
approved Proposition F to prohibit banks and other
financial institutions from charging a fee to persons
who do not have an account with that bank or
financial institution, for use of that bank or
financial institution's automated teller machines in
San Francisco. These fees are often in addition to
harged to the customer by the customer's own
bank. In response to passage of Proposition F. Bank
of America, Wells Fargo and the California
Bankers Association sued the City, arguing that
the City had no authority to restrict the fees that
banks charge customers. In November of 1999, a
U.S. District Court' Judge granted a preliminary
injunction preventing the City from enacting
Proposition F. According to Mr. Marc Slavin of the
City Attorney's Office, the City is currently
appealins that injunction. Mr. Slavin advises that
the City Attorney's Office has not yet formally
determined whether Proposition Fs restriction on
surcharge fees would apply to ATMs at the Airport.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
16
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
4. Mr. Slavin advises that the City Attorney's Office
has not yet formally determined whether Travelex
America, Inc. fits the definition of "bank or
financial institution," as defined in Proposition F.
However, if the City Attorney's Office determines
that Travelex America, Inc. does fall within the
purview of Proposition F and that Proposition F
applies to ATMs at the Airport, and if Proposition F
is upheld in the courts, then Travelex America, Inc.
would be prohibited from charging the proposed
surcharge of up to $1.50.
As previously reported, the Airport has not
estimated the amount of revenues that would be
generated by such proposed surcharges. However,
in accordance with the proposed lease provisions,
the Airport would receive 33 percent of these
surcharge revenues from Travelex America, Inc.
5. The Budget Analyst notes that under the
proposed leases, the Airport Director would have
the authority to approve such transaction
surcharges of up to $1.50 per customer use. Given
the recent approval of Proposition F by the San
Francisco voters, the current legal status of this
issue, and the potential for Travelex America, Inc.
to be affected by this Proposition, the Budget
Analyst considers approval of the proposed
resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Attachment I
Pae;e 1 of T~
EXHIBIT B
USE AND OPERATIONAL REQLIREMEN I S
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS : All ATM Services shall be provided on a non-
exclusive basis, and Airport reserves the right to sell and to permit other Airport tenants to
provide such services. Tenant may not offer any services not described below as beina
"Required" or "Optional", without Director's prior consent.
2. REQUIRED/OPTIONAL SERVICES : In the event Director permits any service to be
sold or offered that is not listed below, or otherwise permits any other change in the
Permitted Use, this Exhibit shall be deemed amended without need for a formal
amendment of this Lease. Tenant shall be required to operate the Premises in accordance
with the requirements, and offer the service, as described below
A. Required Uses:
Tenant shall provide the following services, on a non-exclusive basis:
1 . Dispense United States currency
2. Provide access to network support form no less than four of the following
networks: Plus. Star, Cirrus. GlobalAccess and Interlink and accept no less than
four of the following credit cards: American Express, Diner's Club. MasterCard.
Visa. Discover Novus Card.
3. Provide a written receipt of each transaction.
4. Provide display functions on user operation.
5. Display transaction fee surcharge information.
B. Optional Uses:
Tenant may provide, on a non-exclusive basis, the following "Optional Use, as
approved in writing by the Director. Any "Optional Use" for which Tenant receives or
charges a commission, surcharge or other fee shall be subject to payment of
percentage rent as described in Section 4 of the Lease.
1 Provide access to financial networks and credit cards other than those required
under Exhibit B 2. A. 2. hereto.
2. Dispense traveler's checks.
3. Dispense United States postage stamps ilue.
4. Provide tickets for San Francisco regional area cultural, performing arts and
sporting events.
3
Dispense airline tickets.
Exhibit B - Paiie
18
Attachment I
Page 2 of 3
6. Display animated software graphics
7. Accept deposits to accounts.
8. Handle debit card transactions.
9. Other services consistent with the operations of ATMs that can be demonstrated to
benefit customers and the traveling public, if and as approved by the Airport
Director.
3. PROHIBITED USES/SERVICE
Tenant understands and agrees that the following products or services are not included
within the Permitted Use, without the prior written consent of Director, which consent mav be
granted or denied in Director's absolute and sole discretion.
1 . Any and all sales of phone cards
2. Dispense or exchange foreign currency
3. Offer gambling of any kind
4. Display advertising, except that electronic display of Tenant's services dunna
"wait" times while transactions are processing shall not be deemed to be
advertising prohibited hereunder
5. Sell any type of merchandise
4. OPERATIONS
A. Hours of Operations
Each ATM shall operate twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week including
holidays.
B. Maintenance and Operation of Units
ATMs must be capable of handling, via telephone link, access to accounts for transactions
including withdrawals, deposits and charges against credit lines. Without limiting the
generality of Section 3.1 1 [Compliance with Laws], Tenant shall cause the operation of
ATMs to be in compliance with all Governmental, Banking and FAA Regulations, including
security requirements and Airport Rules and Regulations. Tenant shall be responsible for the
secure transport of cash and receipts to and from each specific ATM location. Pursuant to
FAA Regulations, no arms are permitted beyond the security checkpoints. Airport police shall
not be responsible for escorting ATM service personnel.
The ATMs and each location will be kept in clean, dust free, neat and first-class business-like
and orderly condition at all times. The ATMs will be serviced and monitored in a manner that
ensures the continual and uninterrupted operation of each unit. The Airport Director mav
require more frequent servicing and stocking upon written notice to Tenant Failure to
maintain and service units according to the aforesaid standard will result in the imposition o(
il B Page 2
1 Q
Attachment I
Page 3 of 3~
progressively stringent fines, as provided in Section 15.8 hereto. Emergency service response
should be available within ninety (90) minutes of notice. Except for emergency response,
servicing of the ATM units must be done dunng off-peak hours of 2:30 p.m. through 5:30
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. through 5:30 a.m. or other hours as may be designated in writing from
time to time by Director.
C. Informational Displays
Tenant shall provide and display at each ATM unit ail written directions necessary to instruct
customers in the operation of the ATM. Tenant shall also provide, either through the ATM's
electronic display or affixed to the ATM. information for the obtaining machine services
and/or refunds. Tenant shall not place or install any racks, stands or other display on
Airport property outside the Premises.
D. Transaction Surcharges
Tenant shall not charge Transaction Surcharges except as approved in writing by Director.
The Maximum amount of any such Transaction Surcharge that may be approved shall be
SI. 50 per Customer L'se. The amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and a clear
description of the customers to which it applies must be posted in a clearly visible manner on
the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated clearly through the ATM's electronic display
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue the transaction with a Transaction
Surcharge before the Customer Use is completed. Any Transaction Surcharges charged by
Tenant must be consistent throughout the Airport and cannot exceed charges at other locations
in Tenant's system. Transaction Surcharges shall be subject to Percentage Rent as described
in the Lease.
E. Management
Tenant shall select and appoint a full-time experienced manager fully authorized to represent
and act on behalf of Tenant providing an err ntact number on a twenty-four
hour basis
Tenant shall not staff the ATM locations, conduct other business, provide other services or
sell any type of merchandise No brochures or adsertising will be displayed without prior
written approval from the Airport Director
The provisions set fourth in this Exhibit B shall be in a'ddition to and not in limitation of the
other provisions in the Lease.
Exhibit B - Paw
Attachment II
Page 1 of 2
AIRPORT
COMMISSION
CITY AND COUNTY
OF 5AN FRANCISCO
WILLie L. JROwn.jH
AMTOR
HfNJIY E. 3ERMAN
*Res/0£«r
LARRY MAZZOIA
VICC PHiilOtNT
MICHAEL S STAUNSlCY
LINDA S. CRAYTON
San Francisco International Airport
TOi
FROM
P.O. Box 8097
San rrandsco. CA 94 128
Tel 650.794. SOOO
www.flysfo.com
AIRPORT COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEMORANDUM
Emilie Neumann
DATE: February 24, 2000
Budget Analyst's Office
Jod Ballesteros
SUBJECT: File #000235 - Airport ATM Services Lease
Below please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution
before the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Lease for ATM Services.
I
SURCHARGES
JOHN L.MARTIN
JIA^OAT SiaCCTOR
Trayelex America, Inc. plans to charge a surcharge as permitted in Exhibit B. The amount
of the surcharge will not exceed 51.50.
The: Airport will receive 33% of any surcharge Travelex charges.
CURRENT ATM LEASE AGREEMENTS
Barjk of America currently has two Leases with ATM Machines. Lease L86-0039 has two
bank branches and eight ATM machines and a MAG of 5214,160 (plus additional surcharge
and) transaction rents) and I ease L97-0039 has six ATM machines and a MAG of S 1 07,45 1
(plus additional surcharge and transaction rents).
Webs Fargo Bank Lease 97-0293 has 10 ATM machines and a MAG of 5187,472 (plus
additional surcharge and transaction rents).
The total amount of transaction fee and surcharge revenues generated by the leases in
calendar year 1999 equaled $315,192.
Attachment "
Page Z ot 2
Emilic Neumann;
February 24, 2000
Page 2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL RENTAL REVENUES
Travelex America, Inc. was the sole responsive bidder, and Travelex America, Inc. will execute
both Leases, wita the bid amount of $241,500 which will be the minimum annual guarantee for
each Lease for the first year. Travelex America, Inc. will pay the MAG for each Lease plus,
additional surcharge and transaction rents.
There are no estimated forecasts for revenues generated from transaction fees at this time as
these fees are based on user volume. Due to the fact that the ATM machines will be located in a
building that did'not exist previously, there is no historical data on which to make such forecasts.
BIDDING PROCESS
The Airport offered Invitations to Bid for the ATM services lease to 158 firms. Staff received
one bid from Travelex America, Inc. for S24 1,500.
Bank of .America and Wells Fargo Bank were invited to bid on these leases. However, both
companies cited 'issues with the rent structure, the SI 30,000 Minimum Bid, and the outcome of
legal activity surrounding Proposition *'F\ the initiative that would prohibit ATM surcharges in
San Francisco.
22
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 5 - File 00-0236
Department:
Item:
Airport
Resolution approving a new foreign currency
exchange lease at the Airport between Travelex
America, Inc. and the City and County of San
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport
Commission.
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Lessee:
Eleven different locations at the Airport, as
identified in Attachment I, provided by the Airport.
The proposed lease would provide approximately
1,229 square feet of space to operate foreign
currency exchanges in 11 locations at the Airport,
as identified in Attachment I, provided by the
Airport.
City and County of San Francisco, acting by and
through its Airport Commission.
Travelex America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by Travelex America
to the Airport:
The proposed lease would include approximately a
total of 1,229 square feet to operate ten foreign
currency exchange facilities and one office for
administration, as explained in Attachment I.
provided by the Airport. The total rental revenues
to be paid by Travelex America to the Airport
would be approximately $280 per square foot per
month, or $343,958 per month ($4,127,500
annually).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Annual Rental
Revenues Payable by
Travelex America
to the Airport:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Utilities and Janitorial
Provided by Lessor:
Description:
Beginning from the first year of the lease, and
through the duration of the five-year lease period,
the base annual rent payable by Travelex America
to the Airport will be the greater of the Minimum
Annual Guarantee (MAG) of $4,127,500, subject to
Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual adjustments,
or a passenger-based fee equal to eighty-eight cents
($0.88) multiplied by the total number of
enplanements (the total number of passengers
boarding airline carriers for international flights]
Attachment II. provided by the Airport, shows: (a)
the total estimated annual rental revenues from
the eleven foreign currency exchange locations to
be paid by Travelex America to the Airport
annually, and (b) the total estimated revenues of
J, 355, 871 to be paid to the Airport over the five
year lease term. As shown in Attachment II, these
estimates are based on the Minimum Annual
Guarantee and are adjusted upward using
projected increases in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI). Attachment II also lists the two firms
currently holding leases for foreign currency
exchange locations at the Airport and the
Minimum Annual Guarantee paid by each lessee.
The proposed lease would commence on September
26, 2000. The lease would be for a five year period,
terminating on September 25, 2005.
The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two
two-year extensions for the lease.
The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and
janitorial services.
On September 21, 1999. the Airport Commission
requested bids for a lease to operate currency
exchange facilities at 11 different locations in the
Airport, as identified in Attachment I.
Subsequently, on December 21. 1999 the Airport
Commission adopted a resolution awarding the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Tenant Improvements:
lease to Travelex America, Inc, the highest
responsive bidder (Resolution No. 99-0449).
According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 129 firms for
the foreign currency exchanges at 11 locations in
the Airport (See Attachment II). Attachment II also
contains a list of all firms that submitted bids for
this concession and the Minimum Annual
Guarantees of each bidder. According to Mr.
Rhoades, all firms submitting bids agreed to pay
the greater of the Minimum Annual Guarantee of
$4,127,500 or the $0.88 per passenger fee, as
outlined in the proposed lease. However these firms
were not required to include in their bids revenue
projections based on this passenger fee.
Travelex America would be required to invest a
minimum of $184,200 in improvements to the
subject lease space. This minimum investment
amount of $184,200 is based on $200 a square foot
for 921 square feet to be used for currency exchange
facilities (out of the total 1,229 square feet covered
by the subject lease). The minimum investment
does not apply to the remaining 308 square feet
designated for office space. According to Mr.
Rhoades, these improvements include constructing
the foreign currency exchange facilities, providing
trade fixtures and hanging signs. Mr. Rhoades
advises that the Airport requires a minimum of
$200 a square foot in improvements to ensure that
Travelex America constructs currency exchange
facilities consistent with the design, materials and
quality of existing Domestic Terminals and the new
International Terminal.
Comments:
1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 11 foreign
currency exchange facilities will be completed by
August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises that the
Airport's new International Terminal is now
scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or three
months later than the previously estimated
opening date of June 26, 2000, in order to allow the
Airport time to test the new facilities.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. Item No. 4, File 00-0235 of this report to the
Finance and Labor Committee, pertains to two
additional proposed Airport leases to Travelex
America to provide automated teller machines
(ATMs) in the Airport's new International
Terminal.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
:
EXHIBIT A
PREMISES
--"•c'-'.-i?"
^EE^E^C^MDISfS®
TERMINAL
LOCATION
New International Terminal I.3.003F- Great Hall North ticket island facing north
Pre-Security , across from food court.
Approximately 69 square foot area.
New International Terminal
Pre-Secuntv
I.3.014E- Great Hall South ticket island facing south
across from food court.
Approximately 67 square foot area.
New International Terminal
Pre-Security
& Office space
I.3.084D- North Shoulder Building next to restrooms,
hair salon and Discretionary Store.
Approximately 150 square foot area.
I3.084.E- Office space located behind foreign currency
retail space I3.084D. Approximately 30S square foot
area.
New International Terminal
Boarding .Area A
Post-Secuntv
A.3.023- Mid-Terminal next to food cluster across from
phones.
Approximately 13S square foot area.
New International Terminal
Boarding Area G
Two Locations
Post-Security
( 1 ) G.3.004K- Next to large duty free shop and
restaurant/"bar before people mover.
Approximately 2 1 3 square foot area.
(2) One (1) Mobile Cart Location. *
(not shown)
New International Terminal
Arrivals
Post-Secuntv
I.2.024B- Southwest lobby area, behind Lodging
Transportation and Attraction board across from
escalators to Great Hall approximately 134 square foot
area. Space for one Automated Foreign Currency
Exchange Machine at this location
New International Terminal
.Arrivals
I.2.007C- Northwest lobby area, behind Lodging
Transportation and Attraction board across from
escalators to Great Hall approximately 150 squa:
area. Space for one Automated Foreign Curren
Exchange Machine at this location.
Domestic Terminals
Approximately Two (2) Mobile Cart Locations.
(not shown)
(See attached drawings)
TOTAL: 10 Locations (Approximately 921 sq. ft.) and 1 Office (Approximately 308 sq. ft.)
• * All mobile cart locations shall be as designated by the Airport from time to time.
Exhibit A Page I
Attachment II
Paee 1 ot !3
San Francisco International Airpon
COMMISSION
CITY AND COUNTY
Of SAN FRANCISCO
WILLtf I tnOWN. JR.
rtCNRY I.IUMAM
mtnatMT
LARRY MAilOLA
ViCf »«f J/OfNT
LINDA S CRAVTON
JOHN L UJIRTIN
AJJI/>0»roi»fC"O»
P.O. ao« 8097
San Francisco. O* 94123
Td 650 794.J000
Fax 650 794.5005
■yww >itocom
AIRPORT COiVLVDSSION
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MK.MORAM)! M
TOi Emibc Neumann
Budget Analyst's Office
DATE: February 24, 2000
FROM: Jon Balleslcros
SUBJECT: File ^000236 - Airpon Foreign Currency Exchange Lease
Belcjw please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution
before the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Foreign Currencv Lease.
REVENUE ESTIMATES
The foreign Currency Exchange rent terms are the greater of the Minimum .Annual
Guarantee or the Passenger-Based Fee. The first year MAG for Travelex America, Inc.
is S4.127.500. The Passenger-Based is equal to S0.88 multiplied by total number of
International Passengers Enplaned on Intemanonal flights per year.
Below are the projected Imernarional Passengers Enplaned and projected annual
fees for the next five years and the total projected Passenger Based Fee
Revenue:
Year Projected Enplaned
! Passengers In Millions
X S0.88
Fee
j Projected Annual
Passenger- Based Fees
2001 3.7
S3.256.000
2002 i 4.0
S3.520.000
2003 I 4.3
S3.784.000
2004 1 4.7
S4. 136.000
2005 I 5.0
i 54.400,000
TOTAL PROTECTED FEE REVENl
r
! S19.096.000
Attachment II
Page Z ot 3
Emilie Neumanr
February 24,
Page 2
20(0
Below are the projected annual MAG rents with CPI adjustments and the total Revenue from
projected MAG rents:
Year j
Adjusted
Current
MAG
Projected
CPI
Projected
Adjustment
Projected New MAG
after CPI adjustment
2001 i $4,127,500
4.0% 1 5165,100
54,292,600
2002 !
54,292,600
4.0% 1 5171.704
54.464.304
2003 i
S4,464,304
4.0%
5178,572
54,642,876
2004
54,628,876
4.0%
5185,715
54,828,591
TOTAL PROJECTED MAG REVENUE
522,355.871
Due to the initial MAG offering of 54,1 27,500 and subsequent annual CPI adjustments
the Passenger-Based Fee is not expected to become greater than the current MAG.
CURRENT FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE LEASES
There are two companies that currently hold leases with the Airport for currency exchange: Bank of
America and Tejetrip.
Bank of America Lease L86-0039 from 1987 is currently month to month with two foreign currency
locations in the International Terminal (one branch pre-secunty and a satellite office post security in
departures) and a MAG of $2 1 4, 1 60.
i
Teletrip Lease L93-0060 from 1993 is currently month to month with five locations (three in the
International Teijminal, one office prc-security, one satellite in arrivals, one cart post security and
two carts located in the North Terminal with a current MAG of 5856,622.
In 1993, Travelex partnered with Mutual of Omaha Insurance to take over management of the
Foreign Currency branches in the U.S. (The Airport foreign currency division of Mutual of
Omaha is known as 'Tele-Trip"). In 1999 Travelex purchased Tele-Trip, Travelex will continue
to manage the current leases signed under Tele-Trip until the leases have expired.
It is anticipated ihat both leases will terminate with the closing of the existing International Terminal
on September 25, 2000.
?Q
Attachment I.
Pape 3 of 3
Emilie Neumann
February 24, 20(jo
Page 3
BIDDING PROCESS
The Airport offered Invitations to Bid for the currency exchange facility lease to 129 firms.
The following companies that submitted bids for this concession:
• American Express tendered a non-responsive bid of S 1 ,000,000.
• ICE Currency Services USA tendered a bid of 53,251 ,878.
• Travelex Amkrica Inc. tendered the highest apparent responsive bid of S4, 127,500.
in
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
ItemS -File 00-0268
Note: This proposed resolution was continued by the Finance and Labor
Committee at its meeting of March 1, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Lessee:
Airport
Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub
Principal Retail Concession lease between Host
International, Inc. and the City arid County of San
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport
Commission.
North Terminal Hub of the Airport
Concession space for a specialty store and a
newsstand (See Description Section below)
City and County of San Francisco through the
Airport Commission
Host International
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by
Host International
to the Airport:
A total of 4,984 square feet at two locations in the
Airport's North Terminal Hub, consisting of 3,784
square feet for a specialty store and 1,200 square feet
for a newsstand. The total rental revenues to be paid
by Host International to the Airport based on the
Minimum Annual Guarantee would be
approximately $42.50 per square foot per month, or
$212,500 per month ($2,550'000 annually).
Annual Rental Revenues
Payable by
Host International
to the Airport:
The proposed lease would require Host International
to pay the Airport the greater of a Minimum Annual
Guarantee (MAG) of $2,550,000 for each year of the
five year lease term, or a percentage of gross
revenues realized by Host International. According
to the lease, the annual percentage of gross revenues
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
is 12% for the first $500,000, 14% between $500,000
and $1,000,000, and 16% for all gross revenues in
excess of $1,000,000. The terms of the proposed lease
are similar to the terms of concession leases
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors for
the Airport. The subject lease also provides for
annual increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee
based on increases in the U.S. Department of Labor
Department Store Inventory Price Index-Soft Goods. 1
Term of Lease: The proposed lease is scheduled to commence in
December of 2000, upon completion of the required
renovation work by Host International. The lease
would be for a five-year period, terminating in
December of 2005.
The five-year lease term begins on the Rent
Commencement Date, defined in the lease as the
first day both spaces covered by the subject lease are
fully operational. According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the
Airport, the specialty store is expected to be
operational by June 10, 2000. However, the
newsstand is not expected to be operational until
December of 2000 due to the North Terminal/Thumb
Expansion. Ms Ricas.a advises that prior to
completion of the newsstand and the Rent
Commencement Date, expected in December of 2000,
Host International will pay to the Airport a prorated
rent based on the 3,784 square feet for the operating
specialty store (the total 4.984 square feet covered by
the subject lease less the 1,200 square feet for the
newsstand).
Right of Renewal:
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor:
None
The Lessee will pay for the costs of all utilities and
janitorial sew:
1 According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the Airport, soft goods are defined as retail goods such a
toys, sunglasses, and books. The Airport has determined that this price index is the most
appropriate one to applv to leases for Airport concessions.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Description:
The proposed resolution would approve a concession
lease for Host International to operate one specialty
store and one newsstand in the North Terminal Hub
of the Airport. Under the terms of the subject lease,
Host International has identified the following five
retail "concepts" to be sold in the specialty store: (1)
Souvenir/Gift Items; (2) High-End Retail; (3) Bay
Area-Northern California Specialty Items; (4)
Museum-Related Products; and (5) Aviation-Related
Products.
The proposed lease would require Host International
to sell the following at the newsstand: local, daily
and out-of-town newspapers; 200 separately
displayed periodicals and magazines; 300 separately
displayed hardback and paperback books, plus
candy, tobacco, health aids, and souvenir items.
Host International would directly operate the first 3
of the 5 concepts listed above for the specialty store
and all of the newsstand, totaling 3,488 square feet,
or 70 percent of the total 4,984 square feet covered
by the subject lease. Host International would
sublease operation of the two remaining concepts in
the specialty store to two Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBEs): 1-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun
Shade Holding Corporation. The total 1,496 square
feet sub-leased by the DBE companies would be
approximately 30 percent of the total 4,984 square
footage covered by the lease.
The following table identifies the two retail spaces
covered by the subject lease, the five concepts for the
specialty store, the types of goods sold by each
business, and the square footage occupied by each
business.
Concession
Operator
Concept
Sq. Feet
Specialty Store
Host
Souvenir / Gift Items
2,288
High-End Retail
Bay Area & Northern
California Items
1-5 Concessions
Aviation Products
748
Sun Shade
Museum Products
748
Total Sq. Ft for Specialty Store
3.784
Newsstand
Host | Newsstand
1.200
Total Square Feet for Lease
4.984
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Tenant
Improvements:
Host International would be required to invest a
minimum of $150 per square foot to renovate the
subject lease space, or a total of $747,600 for the
4,984 square feet covered by the subject lease.
Under the terms of the proposed lease, Host
International would have the option to request
Airport approval for two temporary facilities to sell
merchandise during such renovations, estimated to
take 90 days. During such time. Host would pay the
Airport a percentage rent of 20 percent of gross
revenues. In addition, Ms. Ricasa states that the
Airport plans to give Host International permission
to operate a temporary facility to sell newsstand
merchandise during the period that the North
Terminal Hub/Thumb Expansion delays the turnover
of space to Hosl International. Host International
will pay to the Airport 20 percent of gross revenues
earned from the temporary newsstand facility.
Comment:
According to Ms. Ricasa, on September 21. 1999 the
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 60 firms for the
subject concession lease, as stated in the Attachment
to this report, provided by the Airport. Subsequently,
on December 21, 1999, the Airport Commission
adopted a resolution awarding the lease to Host
International, the highest responsive and qualified
bidder. The Attachment also contains a list of all
firms that submitted bids for this concession and
their Minimum Annual Guarantees.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment Pa°;e 1 of
San rrartcsco International Airport
VIA FACSIMILE. (4151 252-0416
DATE: February 23, 2000
AIBPOIIT
TO:
FROM:
-0. Eci im/
S^ri fiafx.sco. CA 9<t*2S
> 6:0. 7?d 5CQQ
.vww.,Wc.\c=hi
.xmxotmit Subject:
Emiiy Newman
Budget Anaiyst Office
• Qt
Gigi Ricasa >->•
Airport Concession Development and Management
North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession Lease (the "Lease"')
This Lease was developed based on the compatibility with passenger needs and
desires, current marketing and retaii trends, demographics of the traveling public,
the economy, the existing concession the surrounding area and proposals received
from the community or retail industry.
Standard Marketing Procedure fcranv Concession Ooccrtunit]/
After Airport Commission approves staff to conduct a pre-bid/prcposal conference,
Concession Development and Management ("CDM") staff mails a letter of interest
to a mailing list that has been generated by CDM that relates to the concept of the
concession opportunity. The interested parties who respond to the letter of interest
are placed on a more specified mail list. The specified mail list receives copies of
pre-'bids and bid documents. For this Lease, the draft Request for Qualification and
Proposal and Bid ("RFC/P and Bid") Documents and the final RFQ/P/ and Bid
Documents were mailed to approximately 60 people who responded to the letter of
interest. There were 32 attendees at the public informational conference held in
August 1SS9.
Competitive Process
The competitive process used for this Lease was a proposal and a bid process.
Interested parties were each required to submit a proposal, which requires for four
to five retail concepts in the bigger space and a newsstand for the smaller space.
The other main requirement was that the successful Proposer sublease 30% of the
total square footage to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise(s). If the croccsal(s)
wss deemed acceptable, the proposer advances to the second stage, which is the
bid stage. The Proposer's bid form is opened at a public meeting and at this stage,
whoever submits the highest bid amount is announced the apparent successful
bidder. This Bidder then submits additional cacerwcrk regarding Human Rights
Commission Requirement to ensure that this Bicder meets these requirements.
Attachment
Page 2 of 2
Memo to emily Newman
PeCivary 23, 2CC0
Page 2
Result of RFQ/P/ and Bid
There were two companies who submitted proposals: O Host International, Inc. and ©
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC. Both proposals were deemed acceptable,
therefore, both Proposers' bid forms were opened, and the result was:
Bidder Bid Amount
Host International, Inc. 52. 550, COO
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC S1 .4C8.SS9.99
The Airport Commission formally awarded the Lease to Host International, Inc. en
December 21, 19S9.
Highest Bidder and its Proposed Subtenant
Host proposed four concepts in the bigger space, and they are: © Souvenir
merchandise. © Museum items, © Aviation items © California regional packaged feed
products, and © High end retail. Host will sublease two or the concepts tc the
following D8Es: I-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun Shade Holding Corporation. The rent
for the DBE is as foilows: Tenant shall charge the DBE Subtenant, as rent, no more
than the same tiered rent percentage to the DBEs, which is as fellows:
■ 1 2% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved up to and
including $500,000; plus
• 14% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved from $500, 0C "
up to and including 51.000,000; plus
■ 1 6% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises over $1 ,000,000.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at {650} 794-4505 if you have further questions.
Thank you for your assistance in obtaining Board of Supervisors' approval on this
Lease.
•**
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 7 - File 00-0318
Department: Airport
Item: Resolution approving the New International Fine Dining
Restaurant Lease between GQC Holdings, Inc., a certified
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, and the City and
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport
Commission.
Location: New International Terminal of the Airport
Purpose of Lease: The proposed lease would provide approximately 6,715
square feet of space to operate one fine dining restaurant at
one location.
Lessor: City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through
its Airport Commission.
Lessee: GQC Holdings, a California corporation
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by GQC Holdings
to the Airport: Approximately 6,715 square feet to operate a restaurant at
one location in the Airport's New International Terminal.
The total rental revenues to be paid by GQC Holdings, Inc.
to the Airport based on the Minimum Annual Guarantee
would be approximately $1.67 per square foot per month, or
$11,192 per month ($134,300 annually). According to Mr.
Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the Minimum Annual
Guarantee of $1.67 per square foot per month is less than
the rent per square foot of other concession leases, due to
the high costs of operating a fine dining restaurant and the
large number of square feet (6,715) covered by the subject
lease.
Annual Rental Revenues
Payable by GQC Holdings
to the Airport: The proposed lease would require GQC Holdings, Inc. to
pay to the Airport the greater of a Minimum Annual
Guarantee (MAG) of $134,300 for each year of the ten year
and four month lease term, or a percentage of gross
revenues realized by GQC Holdings. According to the lease,
the annual percentage of gross revenues is 4% for the firsl
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
"}7
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
$1,000,000 and 6% for all gross revenues in excess of
$1,000,000. The subject lease also provides for annual
increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee based on
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport estimates that for
the first year of the proposed lease, the percentage of gross
revenues realized by CQG Holdings, as detailed above, will
exceed the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $134,300 by
$109,700. The Airport would thus receive for the first year
of the lease an estimated percentage rent of $244,000 based
on GQC Holdings' estimated annual gross receipts of
$4,400,000.
Term of Lease:
According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport established the
amount of the Minimum Annual Guarantee and the
percent of gross revenues to be paid to the Airport for the
fine dining lease, and that all firms submitting proposals
were required to meet those conditions Mr Rhoades
advises that the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $134,300
and the percent gross revenues of 4% for the first
$1,000,000 and 6% for all gross revenues in excess of
$1,000,000 therefore applied to all firms that submitted
proposals to the Airport for the fine dinm. \ccording
to Mr Rhoades, the firms submitting proposals were not
required to submit gross revenue projections.
The proposed Lease would commence on September 26,
2000. The lease would be for a ten year, four month period,
terminating on January 25, 2011.
Right of Renewal:
None
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor: The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and janitorial
services.
Description:
On September 21. 1999, the Airport Commission adopted a
resolution awarding the New International Terminal Fine
Dining Restaurant Lease to GQC Holdings. Inc. (Resolution
No. 99-0465). The fine dining lease was one of 16 leases the
Airport awarded to San Francisco and Bay Area firms to
operate food and beverage facilities in the new
International Terminal.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
IS
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
According to Mr. Rhoades, in 1998 the Airport selected the
firm Pacific Gateway Partnership, through a formal
Request for Qualifications/Proposals process, to conduct an
outreach program for selecting food and beverage
operations. As outlined in Attachment I, provided by Mr.
Rhoades, Pacific Gateway Partnership sent invitations to
participate to more than 600 interested parties in February
of 1999. After a process of narrowing down the pool of
applicants, as described in Attachment I, in September of
1999, an Airport-approved committee chose 16 firms for
food and beverage leases in the new International
Terminal. According to Mr. Rhoades, each firm was
required to: (1) have owned/managed food and beverage
businesses for at least 3 of the last 5 years, and (2)
guarantee annual gross revenues of at least $1,000,000.
Mr. Rhoades advises that the selection committee also
based their decision on the quality and look of each food
and beverage company, requiring detailed proposals from
applicants and making site visits to evaluate food, service,
kitchens, and general environment.
Attachment I, provided by the Airport, outlines the process
for choosing both the selection committee and the firms to
be awarded food and beverage leases. According to Mr.
Rhoades, two firms in addition to GQC Holdings submitted
full proposals for the fine dining lease, Chevy's Restaurant
and California Grill. Attachment I explains why the
committee chose GQC Holdings for the fine dining lease.
Attachment II lists the members of the selection committee.
Under the terms of the subject lease, GQC Holdings will
operate a high-quality restaurant, serving quality food and
beverages and including a full bar. According to Mr.
Rhoades, this is the first time the Airport has offered a
lease for high-end fine dining.
Tenant
Improvements: GQC Holdings would be required to invest a minimum of
$250 per square foot in improvements to the subject lease
space, or a total of $1,678,750 for the 6,715 square feet
covered by the subject lease.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comment: According to Mr. Rhoades, the restaurant will be completed
by the scheduled opening date for the Airport's new
International Terminal of September 26, 2000. Mr.
Rhoades advises that the September 26, 2000 opening date,
three months later than the previously estimated opening
date of June 26, 2000, will allow the Airport time to test the
new facilities.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
NEW INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL COMPLEX
FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATOR SELECTION PROCESS
Mid - 1 998 Airport issued RFQ/RFP to select firm to conduct outreach
program to identify food/beverage operators.
Dec, 1998 After Airport panel review, Airport Commission approved
selection of Pacific Gateway Partnership ("PGP") to conduct
outreach.
Jan. - Feb., 1999 Extensive outreach conducted by PGP, including meetings in
San Francisco and on Peninsula.
Feb. 1 999 Phase I of process involved the transmittal of over 600
questionnaires to interested parties.
March 1999 255 respondents to Phase I
Mar. - April, 1999 Airport approved selection panel (attached) screened Phase I
respondents, including site visits, and selected 110
respondents as being qualified for Phase II.
June, 1999 57 submissions were received under Phase II which were
evaluated by selection panel.
Sept. 1999 Airport Commission, based upon recommendation of
Selection Panel and Review by the Airport Director, awarded
food/beverage leases to 16 San Francisco and Bay Area
firms, 15 of which are minority or woman-owned businesses
(DBEs). The Fme Dining Lease was awarded to GQC
Holding, Inc.
GQC Holding, Inc. is a San Francisco based, minority-owned firm that has
demonstrated exceptional ability to develop and operate fme dining facilities.
Shanghai 1930 and Betelnut are two examples of the type of facilities that the firm
operates in San Francisco.
m:\rhoades\tbselect-dcc
rt L. Lell_ lllllCll l-
, ACIFIC
G ATEWAY
PARTNERSHIP
J 2 ■
-
: - 1 :
- -z e - 1 '' '■--'.
zz: rr l« |c5C! ~c-c-_i
Selection Committee Members
Victor Escobedo has extensive experience as a restaurant manager and
owner. He recently opened Papalote Mexican Griil in San Francsco, and
his family owns and operates the Ceila's and Femando's Restaurants
throughout the Bay Area.
MichaeJ Fang has been in the tounst phctograpny business since 1981
with the Red & White ReeL He is owner of C-abcakes & Sweets, a small
fast-food seafood restaurant located at Pier 39.
Grant Mldcins served as Director of the San Francisco Human Rights
Commission from 1975-88. Previously, he has been President of SERJ,
Local 4C0, Deputy Director of the Mayer's Criminal Justice Council, and
President of the San Frandsco Cvil Service Commission. Mr. Mickins
currently serves as an Independent consultant.
Patrick Quek is President and C50 of Hospitality Asset Advisors
International and PKF Consulting. He is a recognized authority on the
As;a/Paafic hotel market. Mr. Quek is active in numerous civic and
industry committees locally and nationally.
Cleopatra Vaughns, RN, is the Chairman of the Board of the San
Francsco Convention & Visiters Bureau. She is the manager of Community
Relations for Blue Shield of California. Ms. Vaughns is the National
President of the National Association of Negro eusiness & Professional
Women's Clubs, Inc.
Alicia Wang is first Vice-Chair of the California Democratic Party, a
member cf the Democratic National Committee, and a member of the
Association of State Democratic Chairs. She is a (acuity member at San
Francisco Oty College.
Robert Wilhelm is a recently retired executive of Westin Hotels and
Resorts, where he was Managing Director of the Westin St. Francs Hctei
en Union Square. He has been Chairman of the Eoard for the San
Francsco Convention & Visitors Bureau and Director cf the San Francsco
Chamber of Comme r ce. He currently works with Lombard Hclcirc-; [nc
John Yee is Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the San
Francisco Giants. He played an integral roie in structuring the pnvate
financing for the new Pacific Beil Park. Previously, Mr. Yee served as Vice
Fresident of Rnanca and Administration for the San Frandsca Convention
&. Visitors Bureau.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 8 - File 00-0289
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Budget:
Fire Department
Department of Public Works
Department of Parking and Traffic
Water Department
Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in
the amount of $59,120 to fund emergency repairs of
the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) facilities
located at the intersections of Third and Evans
Streets and Evans and Selby Streets.
$59,120
Fire Protection Systems Improvement General
Obligation (GO) Bonds, previously appropriated and
placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors
The summary budget for the subject reserved funds is
as follows:
Third Street and Evans Street
$26,083
3.477
Department of Public Works Staff -
Planning and Design
Department of Parking & Traffic Staff -
Traffic Routing Plans
Third/Evans Subtotal
Evans Street and Selbv Street
Department of Public Works Staff -
Planning and Design
Department of Parking & Traffic Staff -
Traffic Routing Plans
Evans/Selby Subtotal
Total Project Budget
$29,560
$26,083
3.477
S29.560
$59,120 !
Attachment I to this report, provided by the
Department of Public Works (DPW). contains details
to support the summary budget above.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Description:
Comments:
The subject reserved funds would be used for the
planning and design work needed for the repair of two
ruptured Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS)
pipes at the intersections of Third Street/Evans Street
and Evans Street/Selby Street. The AWSS is a system
of reservoirs, cisterns, pipelines, pump stations, and
fireboats, comprising the source of water supply for
fire protection in emergency situations.
The City sold a total of $46 .2 million in Fire
Protection Systems Improvement General Obligation
Bonds ($31 million in 1987 and $15.2 million in 1991)
to finance improvements to the City - Auxiliary Water
Supply System. In March of 1996, the Board of
Supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation
ordinance for S3. 907. 900 (File 101-95-61) from
accrued interesl from the Fire Protection Systems
Improvement Bonds for four categories of capital
improvement projects: (1) repair and improvement of
the Fireboat Phoenix. (2) implementation of motorized
AWSS control valves, (3) repairs to the AWSS w
storage tank, and (4) emergency repairs of AWSS
facilities. The subject requested release of reserved
funds would come from category (4) emergency
repairs of AWSS facilities.
1 According to Mr. Patrick Rivera of the Department
of Public Works, two ruptured 12-inch diameter pipes
were discovered in the Auxiliary Water Supply
System (AWSS) pipelines, at the intersections of
Evans and Selby Streets and Third and Evans Streets
on January 2, 2000 and February 2, 2000
respectively. Mr. Rivera advises that the Fire
Department conducted initial investigations after
receiving reports of water leaks. After the source of
each leak was located, the main valves on both ends
of the ruptured pipes were closed, shutting off the
high-pressure water supply to Bayview Hunters
Point. According to Mr. Bill Gunn of the Fire
Department, the disabled ruptured pipes significantly
hamper fire protection for Bayview Hunters Point
since the two pipes are the only direct water sources
for fire emergencies in the district.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. According to Mr. Rivera, during the time since
DPW and the Fire Department originally submitted
the subject request for a release of reserved funds,
repairs have already begun on the ruptured pipe at
Third and Evans Streets. Such repairs will cost an
estimated total of $24,982. This amount of $24,982 to
repair the leak is $4,578 less than the original request
in the subject proposal of $29,560 for the design and
planning necessary to repair the ruptured pipe.
According to Mr. Rivera, as stated in Attachment II,
after further investigation. DPW and the Fire
Department learned that the leak at Third and Evans
Streets was less serious than they had first
anticipated and that they could repair the leak at a
lower cost, without going through the design and
planning process. According to Mr. Rivera, DPW and
the Fire Department believed it was important to
begin the emergency repairs as soon as possible since
Bayview Hunters Point depends on the two ruptured
AWSS pipes for fire protection.
A summary budget for the repairs at Third and Evans
Streets is as follows:
Repairs: Third and Evans Streets
Labor
Fire Department
$10,254
Water Department
6.554
DPW - Bureau of Street & Sewer Repair
2.000
Labor Total:
$18,808
Equipment
3,490
Materials
2,684
TOTAL BUDGET COSTS:
$24,982
Attachment III, provided by DPW, contains details to
support the summary budget shown above. According
to Mr. Rivera, it is standard procedure for DPW to use
part of the subject requested reserved funds to
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
reimburse the Fire Department, the Water
Department and the Department of Parking and
Traffic for their work, as stated in Attachment III.
3. The proposed release of reserved funds should be
amended to account for the repairs that have already
begun at Third and Evans Streets, as described in
Comment No. 2 above. The original proposed release
of reserved funds of $29,560 for design and planning
for repairs of the AWSS system at Third and Evans
Streets should be reduced by | the current
cost estimate of $24,982 to repair the leak. The
amended total subject request would thus be
or $4,578 less than the original request of $59,120,
for: (1) repairs at Third and Evans Streets ($24,9?
and (2) design and planning for repair- at Evans and
Selby Stn
4. According to Mr Rivera, and as detailed in
Attachment I provided by DPW. the subject funds
totaling ! llocated for repairing the remaining
ruptured pipe at Evans and Selby Streets would be
expended for: (a) DPW staff to prepare plans and
specifications for the repair of the 12-inch diameter
pipe ($26,083): and (b) Department of Parking and
Traffic (DPT) to prepare traffic routing plans at the
location Also included in the cost for both
DPW and DPT is coordination with utility companies
and the DPW Bureau of Streets and Mapping for
preparation of construction permits
5. According to Mr. Rivera, the design and planning
for repair work on the remaining ruptured pipe at
Evans and Selby Streets would begin as soon as the
Board approves the subject request for release of
ived funds. DPW intends to request a second
release of reserved bond funds for the actual
construction work to repair the ruptured pipe. The
construction to repair the leak would begin
approximately in May of 2000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed release of reserved funds to
reduce the requested amount by $4,578 from $59,120
to $54,542 as stated in Comment No. 3 above.
2. Approved the proposed release of reserved funds as
amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
Department of Public Works
Engineering Design Services
EVANS AND SELBY DESIGN FEE ESTIMATE
Department
Classification
Classification
Number
Number of
Hours
Hourly Rate
(including
overhead)
Extension
Public Works
Associate Mechanical Engineer
525a
85
577
Public Works
Senior Mecnamcal Engineer
5253
10
S103
SI. 030
Public Works
Engineenng Assoc.
5346
36
557
; Public Works
Senior Clerk
1446
■-;
S45
r:o
Parking & Traffic
iAssoc. Traffic Engineer
5228
10
560
Parking A Traffic
Traffic Engineer
5230
37
S69
S5C
32.553
Parking & Traffic
i Senior Traffic Engineer
5232
S31
Public Works
I Project Manager II
5504
85
S84
: 24
57.140
Public Works
C.vil Engineer
i (Hazardous Specifications)
5208
31
S91
52.321
Public Works
! Associate Civil Engineer
i(Soec Review)
52C6
75
S77
55.775
TOTAL
S29.560
3RD AND EVANS DESIGN FEE ESTIMATE
Department
Classification
Classification j
Number
Numoer of
Hours
Hourly Rate
(including
overhead)
Extension
Public Works
Associate Mechanical Engineer
5254
85
S77
Public Works
Senior Mechanical Engineer
5258
10
5103
S '-°3?J
Public Works
Engineering Assoc.
5346
36
S57
S2
Public Works
Senior Clerk
1446
16
S45
Parkinc & Traffic
Assoc. Traffic Engineer
5223
10
S60
Parking & Traffic
Traffic Engineer
5230
37
S69
s: -
Parking & Traffic
ISenior Traffic Engineer
5232
4
531
5^^"
;Fubiic Works
'Project Manager II
5504
85
S34
Public Works
ICivil Engineer
(Hazardous Soecirlcations)
52C8
31
591
52.821
Public Works
.Associate Civil Engineer
(Scec Review)
5206'
75
S77
TOTAL
S29.56C
TC
TAL FOR BOTH LOCATIONS
$59,12o]
Source: Department of Public Works
City and County of San Francisco
Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor
Mark A. Primeau, AIA, Director
Attachment ll
(415)558-4021
FAX (415) 558-4519
http://www.sfdpw.com
Department of Public Works
Project Management Division
30 Van Ness Avenued to March 15, 2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Jon Ballesteros, Airport Commission:
Supervisor Ammiano.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000289 [Release of Funds, Fire Department]
Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Fire Department,! 1986 Fire Protection Bond interest earnings.
File 101-95-61: Ordinance No. 127-96 ), in the amount of $59,120 to fund the emergency repairs of the City's
Auxiliary Water System (AWSS) facilities located at Third/Evans Streets, and Evans/Selby Streets. (Fire
Department)
2/14/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
3/8/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Superv isor Yee Continued to March 15, 2
department representative present
Heard m Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Patrick Rivera. Department of Public Works,
Supervisor Yee. Amended to only release $54,542
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 5:44 P\f on 316.00
Finance and Labor Committei
Meeting Minnie
March 15, 2000
000311 1 1 999-2000 Budget Status Report|
Supervisor Yee
Hearing to consider the 1999-2000 Budget Status Report issued by the Controller
2 14 ik), Kiel rVED AND ASSIGNI Dtol inance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Ed Harrington, Controller, Supervisor
Ammiano, Erin McGrath, Mayor's Office of Finance, Supervisor Yee TedLakey, Deputy City Attorney, Wan
Norton, S F for Tax Justice. Robert Layman
FILED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000412 | Three Year Budget Projection Joint Report |
Supervisor Yee
Hearing to consider the Three Ycai Budget Projection joint report which has been prepared by the Board of
Supervisors' Budget Analyst, the Controller, and the Mayor's budget director
3/6/00. KICI l\ I I) \\l) ASSli .SI II to Finance and I abor Committee Sponsor requeMJ this matter be considered at the March 15.
2000 meeting
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Ed Harrington, Controller, Supervisor
Ammiano. Erin McGrath. Mayor's Office of Finance, Supervisor Yee TedLakey, Deputy Cm At
Norton, S.F.for Tax Justice. Robert Layman
FILED by the following sole:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000348 [Reserved Funds. Department of Human Services]
Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Human Services, (Fiscal Year
1999-2000 Budget), in the amount of S200.000 to fund the CalWORKS College Scholarship program.
I Human Services Department)
: 24 00, RECEIVI D and ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor C ommitt ee.
Heard in Committee Speakers Han e\ Rose. Budget Analyst. Will Lightboume. Executive Dm
Department of Human Sen ices Amended to only release $140,000
APPROVED VND FILED by the following \ote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000183 [Limitation Period far Filing Ta\ Claim]
Ordinance amending Article 6 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code by amending Section 6.15-1 to
providing that any claim for refund of taxes paid be filed within six months from the time the return was filed
or the tax was paid. \\ hichevet period expires later, with the exception that in no event shall such period expire
prior to the shortest period allowable for filing tax refund claims under Title 1. Division 3.6. Part 3. Section
91 1.2 of the California Government Code. (City Attorney)
1 28/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DA\ Kl I K to Finance and labor Committee, ( :"00.
2 15 00. CLERICAL CORRECTION Corrected to insert "Section 6 15-1" in title only
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; TedLakey, Deputy City Attorney, Supervisor
Yee
RECOMMENDED b\ the following \ote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Primed at 5:4 5 PV on 3 1&00
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes March 15, 2000
SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M.
000309 [Bond Initiative]
Supervisor Leno
Hearing to discuss the possibility of a bond initiative for the November 2000 ballot to address the
infrastructural needs of San Francisco General Hospital and community clinics and the placement of City
health clinics in San Francisco's public schools.
2/14/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee; Supeivisor Ammiano; Supervisor Leno; Harvey Rose,
Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington. Controller; Jim Chappell, Director, SPUR; Dr. Mitchell Katz, Director of
Health; Monique Zmuda. Department of Public Health; Monique Mover. Mayor's Office of Public Finance;
Dr. Tom Coates. Director, UCSF AIDS Research Institute; Dr. Paul Volberding, Director. UCSF Positive
Health Program; Roma Guy, President, Health Commission; Ron Hill, Health Commissioner; Trish Bascom,
Supervisor, SFUSD School Health Program; Maureen McCarthy. Health Center; Balboa High School;
Nathan Nayman, Regional Vice President, Hospital Council; Dan Martin, SEIU Local 250; Fred Hobson.
Alice B. Toklas Club; Gilbert Criswell. Harvey Milk Democratic Club; Sonya Hotchkiss; M. P. R. Howard.
Tom Waddell Community Health Center; Otto Duffy. Community! Health Network; Denise D'Anne, Emergencv
Coalition to Save Public Health; Giuliana Micanese; Ruth Vaughn. Potrero Hill Health Clinic; Richard
Heasley. Conard House; Helynna Brooke. Executive Director, Mental Health Board; Maty Kate Connor.
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m.
City and Count}' of San Francisco 3 Printed at f: 45 P\1 on 1 I MM
CITY AND COUNTY
Susan Horn
Government Documents Section
Main Library
OF SAN FRANCISCO
^OARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street. Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
March 9, 2000
TO: , Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: .Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 1 - File 00-0268
DOCUMENTS DEPT
MAR 1 4 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting
of March 8, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Airport
Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub
Principal Retail Concession lease between Host
International, Inc. and the City and County of San
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport
Commission.
North Terminal Hub of the Airport
Concession space for a specialty store and a
newsstand (See Description Section below)
City and County of San Francisco through the
Airport Commission
Lessee:
Host International
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
No. ofSq. Ft. and
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by
Host International
to the Airport: A total of 4,984 square feel at two locations in the
Airport's North Terminal Hub. consisting of 3,784
square l""t for a specialty store and 1.200 square feet
for a newsstand. The total rental revenues to be paid
by Host International to the Airport based on the
Minimum Annual Guarantee would be
approximately $42 50 per square foot per month, or
$212,500 per month ($2,550,000 annually).
Annual Rental Revenues
Payable by
Host International
to the Airport: The proposed lease would require Host International
to pay the Airport th<> greater of a Minimum Annual
Guarantee (MAG) of >_ '-50,000 for each year of the
the year Ira-.- term, or a percentage of gross
dized by Host International. According
to the lease, the annual percentage of gross reve:
is 12", for the fir '00. 14% between $500,000
and $1,000,000. and 16% for all gross revenues in
excess of $1,000,000. The terms of the proposed lease
are similar to the terms of concession leases
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors for
the Airport. The subject lease also provides for
annual increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee
based on increases in the U.S. Department of Labor
Department Store Inventory Price Index-Soft Goods. 1
Term of Lease: The proposed lease is scheduled to commence in
December of 2000. upon completion of the required
renovation work by Host International. The lease
would be for a five-year period, terminating in
December of 2005.
1 According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the Airport, soft goods are defined as retail goods such a
toy?, sunglasses, and books. The Airport has determined that this price index is the most
appropriate one to applv to leases for Airport concessions.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Right of Renewal:
The five-year lease term begins on the Rent
Commencement Date, defined in the lease as the
first day both spaces covered by the subject lease are
fully operational. According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the
.Airport, the specialty store is expected to be
operational by June 10. 2000. However, the
newsstand is not expected to be operational until
December of 2000 due to the North Terminal/Thumb
Expansion. Ms Ricasa advises that prior to
completion of the newsstand and the Rent
Commencement Date, expected in December of 2000,
Host International will pay to the Airport a prorated
rent based on the 3,^84 square feet for the operating
specialty store (the total 4.984 square feet covered by
the subject lease less the 1,200 square feet for the
newsstand).
None
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor: The Lessee will pay for the costs of all utilities and
janitorial services.
Description:
The proposed resolution would approve a concession
lease for Host International to operate one specialty
store and one newsstand in the North Terminal Hub
of the Airport. Under the terms of the subject lease,
Host International has identified the following five
retail "concepts" to be sold in the specialty store: (1)
Souvenir/Gift Items; (2) High-End Retail; (3) Bay
Area-Northern California Specialty Items; (4)
Museum-Related Products; and (5) Aviation-Related
Products.
The proposed lease would require Host International
to sell the following at the newsstand: local, daily
and out-of-town newspapers: 200 separately
displayed periodicals and magazines; 300 separately
displayed hardback and paperback books, plus
candy, tobacco, health aids, and souvenir items.
Host International would directly operate the first 3
of the 5 concepts listed above for the specialty store
and all of the newsstand, totaling 3,488 square feet.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3
Memo to Finance and Labor Commii
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
or 70 percent of the total l 984 square feet covered
by the Bubjecl International would
-uhlease operation of the two remaining concepts in
the specialty store to two Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBEs): 1-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun
Shade Holding Corporation. The total 1,496 squ
feet sub-leased by the DBE companies would be
approximately 30 percenl of the total 4.984 square
I by the lease.
The following table identifies the two retail spaces
covered' by the subject Lease, the five con the
specialty the types of goods sold by each
business, and the square footage occupied by each
busini
< onci'ssimi
Operator
Concept
Sq. Feet
Specialty Store
Host
Souvenir Gift Items
2.288
Hiuh-End Retail
Bj\ Axel & Northern
California Items
1-5 Concessions 1 Aviation Products
748
Sun Shade Museum Products
748
Total Sq. Ft for Specialty Store
3.784
Newsstand
Host Newsstand
1.200
Total Square Feet for Lease
A .-a
Tenant
Improvements:
Host International would be required to invest a
minimum of $150 per square foot to renovate the
subject lease space, or a total of $747,600 for the
1,984 square feet covered by the subject lease.
Under the terms of the proposed lease. Host
International would have the option to request
Airport approval for two temporary facilities to sell
merchandise during such renovations, estimated to
take 90 days. During such time. Host would pay the
Airport a percentage rent of 20 percent of gross
revenues. In addition. Ms. Ricasa states that the
Airport plans to give Host International permission
to operate a temporary facility to sell newsstand
merchandise during the period that the North
Terminal Hub/Thumb Expansion delays the turnover
of space to Host International. Host International
will pay to the Airport 20 percent of gross revenues
earned from the temporary newsstand facility.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
4
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comment: According to Ms. Ricasa. on September 21, 1999 the
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 60 firms for the
subject concession lease, as stated in the Attachment
to this report, provided by the Airport. Subsequently,
on December 21, 1999, the Airport Commission
adopted a resolution awarding the lease to Host
International, the highest responsive and qualified
bidder. The Attachment also contains a list of all
firms that submitted bids for this concession and
their Minimum Annual Guarantees.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
5
C3MMIS1IO
San rrancsc: interr.aaonai Airrcr:
-
VIA FACSiMll =. f415'i 252-0415
DATE: Pessary 23, 2000
TO: Emiiy Newman
Budge: Analyst Office
FROM: Gici Ricass
&
/
Airpon Concession Development and Management
! Subject North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession Lea - ease"]
This Lease was deveicced based onl ry with passenger- needs ar
desires, current marketing and retail t - mographie
the economy, the existing concessioi r g area and prcposa:: -
from the community or retail industry.
Standard Marketing Procure fcr an v Concession Ooccr
After Airport Commission approves staff to conduct a pre-l si conference,
Concession Development and Manageme ' star mails a letl
to a maiiing list that has been generated by COM that relates to the ccnc-
concession opportunity. Tne interested parties who respc
are oiaced or, a more specified mail list. ~ne specified mail list receives cccies of
pre-bics and bid documents, For this Lease, the car; Request for L ,
Prcocsai and Bid fRFQ/P and Bid"] Documents and me i
Documents were maiied to spproxirne eople who responde: tter of
interest Tnere were 32 attendees s i rmational conference held r
August 1999.
Ccmceiriivz = rocass
The comDetitive orocess used for this _ease was a crcccsa: and at : process.
Interested caries were each recc red to J lit a proposa . which rs
tc five retail concerns in tne o;cce' scace arc a newsstand for the sma;ie: s; ;
other main recuirsment was that the successful proposer sublease :
total scuare footage tc Disadvantaged Business Enterprise - 'the propose
was deemed acceotabie, the orocose" ao v . a~ces tc the second stage which is the
oic stage. The Proposer's bid form is opened at a ouciic meeting snd a: this stage,
whoever submits me hichest bid amount is announced the apparent successi
bidder. Tn:s Bidder tnen submits additional paperwork regarding riumsr Rights
Commission Requirement tc ensure mat this sidcer meets these requirements
Memo !o rmlly Newman
"esr.-sry 23. 2CQC
^58 2
esult of RFQ/Pf and Sid
There were two companies who submitted proposals: O Host International, Inc. and ©
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC. Both proposals were deemed acceptable,
therefore, both Proocsers' bid forms were opened, and the result was:
Bidder Bid Amount
Host International, Inc. S2, 550, 000
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC S1 ,408,999.99
The Airport Commission formally awarded the Lease to Host International, Inc. on
December 21, 1999.
Highest Bidder and its Proposed Subtenant
Host proposed four concepts in the bigger space, and they are: O Souvenir
merchandise, © Museum items, © Aviation items © California regional packaged food
products, and © High end retail. Host will sublease two of the concepts to the
following DBEs: I-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun Shade Holding Corporation. The rent
for the DBE is as follows: Tenant shall charge the DBE Subtenant, as rent, no more
than the same tiered rent percentage to the DBEs, which is as follows:
" 12% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved up to and
including $500,000; plus
• 14% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved from S500, 000.2'
up to and including $1,000,000; plus
■ 15% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises over $1 ,000,000.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 794-4505 if you have further questions.
Thank you for your assistance in obtaining Board of Supervisors' approval on this
Lease.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 2 - File 00-0289
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting
of March 8, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Budget:
Fire Department
Department of Public Works
Department of Parking and Traffic
Water Department
Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in
the amount of $59,120 to fund emergency repairs of
the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) facilities
located at the intersections of Third and Evans
Streets and Evans and Selby Streets.
$59,120
Fire Protection Systems Improvement General
Obligation (GO) Bonds, previously appropriated and
placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors
The summary budget for the subject reserved funds is
as follows:
Third Street and Evans Street
Department of Public Works Staff -
Planning and Design
$26,083
Department of Parking & Traffic Staff -
Traffic Routing Plans
3,477
Third/Evans Subtotal
S29.560
Evans Street and Selbv Street
Department of Public Works Staff -
Planning and Design
$26,083
Department of Parking & Traffic Staff -
Traffic Routing Plans
Evans/Selby Subtotal
Total Project Budget
3.477
$29,560
S.-.9.120
Attachment I to this report, provided by the
Department of Public Works (DPW), contains details
to support the summary budget above.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Description:
Comments:
The subjecl reserved funds would be used for the
planning and design work needed for the repair of two
ruptured Auxiliary Water Supply System (AV.
pipes at the intersections of Third Street/Evans Street
and Evans Street/Selby Street. The AWSS is a system
of re pipelines, pump Btations, and
fireboats, comprising the source of water supply for
fire protection in emergency situation -
The City sold a total of $46.2 million in I
Protection Systems Improvement General Obligation
Bonds ($31 million in 1987 and $15.2 million in 199] I
to finance improvements to the City's Auxiliary Water
Supply System. In March of 1996. the Board of
Supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation
ordinanci - ;,907.900 (Rle 101-95-61) from
accrued interest from the Fire Protection Systems
Improvement Bonds for four categories of capital
improvement projects: ill repair and improvement of
the Fin boat Phoenix. (2) implementation of motorized
AWSS control valves, (3) repairs to the AWSS w
storage tank, and (4) emergency repairs of AWSS
facilities. The subject requested release of reserved
funds would come from category (4) emergency
repairs of AWSS facilities.
1. According to Mr. Patrick Rivera of the Department
of Public Works, two ruptured 12-inch diameter pipes
discovered in the Auxiliary Water Supply
System (AWSS) pipelines, at the intersections of
Evans and Selby Streets and Third and Evans Streets
on January 2, 2000 and February 2. 2000
respectively. Mr. Rivera advises that the Fire
Department conducted initial investigations after
receiving reports of water leaks. After the source of
each leak was located, the main valves on both ends
of the ruptured pipes were closed, shutting off the
high-pressure water supply to Bayview Hunters
Point. According to Mr. Bill Gunn of the Fire
Department, the disabled ruptured pipes significantly
hamper fire protection for Bayview Hunters Point
since the two pipes are the only direct water sources
for fire emergencies in the district.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. According to Mr. Rivera, during the time since
DPW and the Fire Department originally submitted
the subject request for a release of reserved funds,
repairs have already begun on the ruptured pipe at
Third and Evans Streets. Such repairs will cost an
estimated total of $24,982. This amount of $24,982 to
repair the leak is $4,578 less than the original request
in the subject proposal of $29,560 for the design and
planning necessary to repair the ruptured pipe.
According to Mr. Rivera, as stated in Attachment II,
after further investigation. DPW and the Fire
Department learned that the leak at Third and Evans
Streets was less serious than they had first
anticipated and that they could repair the leak at a
lower cost, without going through the design and
planning process. According to Mr. Rivera, DPW and
the Fire Department believed it was important to
begin the emergency repairs as soon as possible since
Bayview Hunters Point depends on the two ruptured
AWSS pipes for fire protection.
A summary budget for the repairs at Third and Evans
Streets is as follows:
Repairs: Third and Evans Streets
Labor
Fire Department
S10,254
Water Department
6.554
DPW - Bureau of Street & Sewer Repair
2.000
Labor Total:
$18,808
Equipment
3,490
Materials
2.684
TOTAL BUDGET COSTS:
$24,982
Attachment III, provided by DPW, contains details in
support the summary budget shown above. According
to Mr. Rivera, it is standard procedure for DPW to use
part of the subject requested reserved funds in
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
i n
Memo to Finance and Labor Commin
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
reimburse the Fire Department, the Water
Department and the Department of Parking and
Traffic for i heir work, as stated in Attachment III.
3. The proposed release of reserved funds should be
amended to account for the repairs that have all
begun at Third and Evans Streets, as described in
Comment No. 2 above. The original proposed release
of reserved funds of $29,560 for design and planning
for repairs of the AW'SS system at Third and Evan-
Streets, should be reduced by $4,578 to the current
cost estimate of to repair the leak. The
amended total subjeci request would thus Le $54 5 12
L578 les> than the original request of $59,120,
for: (1) repair.- at Third and Evans Strei
and (2) design and planning for repairs at Evans and
Selby Stn 560).
1 According to Mr. Rivera, and as detailed in
Attachment I provided by DPW. the subject funds
totaling $29,560 allocated for repairing the remaining
ruptured pipe at Evans and Selby Streets would be
expended for: (a) DPW staff to prepare plans and
Bcations for the repair of the 12-inch diam
pipe ($26,083); and (b) Department of Parking and
Traffic (DPT) to prepare traffic routing plans at the
location ($3,477). Also included in the cost for both
DPW and DPT is coordination with utility companies
and the DPW Bureau of Streets and Mapping for
preparation of construction permits.
5. According to Mr. Rivera, the design and planning
for repair work on the remaining ruptured pipe at
Evans and Selby Streets would begin as soon as the
Board approves the subject request for release of
reserved funds. DPW intends to request a second
release of reserved bond funds for the actual
construction work to repair the ruptured pipe. The
construction to repair the leak would begin
approximately in May of 2000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed release of reserved funds to
reduce the requested amount by $4,578 from $59,120
to $54,542 as stated in Comment No. 3 above.
2. Approved the proposed release of reserved funds as
amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attaches -
Department of Public Works
Engineering Design Services
EVANS AND SELBY DESIGN FEE ESTIMATE
Deoanment
Classification
Classification
Number
Numoer of
Hours
| Hourly Rate
(including
i overhead)
Extension
Public Works
Associate Mechanical Engineer
5254
85
S77
S5.545
Public Works
Senior Mecnanical Engineer
5258
10
S103
SI. 030
Public Works
Engineenng Assoc.
5346
36
S57
S2.C52
iPublic Works
Senior Clerk
1446
16
$45
S720
Parking & Traffic
Assoc. Traffic Enameer
5228
10
S60
S600
iParking & Traffic
Traffic Engineer
5230
37
S69
S2.553
Parking & Traffic
Senior Traffic Engineer
5232
4
S81
S324
Public Works
Project Manager II
5504
85
S84
S7.140
: Public Works
Civil Engineer
(Hazardous Soecmcations!
5208
31
S91
S2
Puoiic Works
Associate Civil Engineer
(Soec Review)
5206
75
S77
S5.775 I
TOTAL
$29,560 j^
3RD AND EVANS DESIGN FEE ESTIMATE
Department
Classification
Classification I
Number
Number of
Hours
I Hourly Rate
(including
i overhead)
Extension
Public Works
Associate Mechanical Enameer i
5254
85
S77
So. 545
PuDlic Works
ISenior Mechanical Engineer
5258
10
S103
Si. 030
Public Works
lEngineering Assoc.
5346
36
S57
S2.052
Public Works
Senior Clerk
1446
16
S45
S720
Parking & Traffic
Assoc. Traffic Enameer
5228
10
S60
S500
Parking & Traffic
Traffic Encmeer
5230
37
S69
S2.553
IParking & Traffic
iSenior Traffic Engineer
5232
4
S81
S324
iPublic Works
IProject Manager II
5504
85
S84
S7.140
Public Works
Civil Engineer
I (Hazardous SDecifications)
5208
31
S91
S2.821
Public Works
Associate Civil Engmee r
(Soec Review!
5206"
75
S77
S5.775
TOTAL
S29.560
TOTAL FOR BOTH LOCATIONS
S59.120
Source: Department of Public Works
13
City and County of San Francisco
Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor
Mark A. Primeau, AIA, Director
Attachment II
(415)558-4021
FAX (415) 558-4519
http://www.sfdpw.com
Department of Public Works
Project Management Division
30 Van Ness Avenue, 5* Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-6020
Kathryn How, Assistant City Engineer
MEMORANDUM
To:
Emilie Neumann
Budget Analyst
Date: February 23, 2000
From: Patrick Rivera
DPW-Project Manager
Subject: Release of Reserve Revision
AWSS Repair at 3 rd and Evans
This is to clarify and revise the Request for Release of Reserve that was submitted to the Board
of Supervisors on February 1 1, 2000 by the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD). The request
was for design funds to prepare construction documents for the repair of Auxiliary Water Supply
System (AWSS) leaks that were discovered in January 2000 at two locations: 3 rd and Evans and
Evans and Selby. The estimate to prepare construction documents for the 3 rd and Evans site is
S29,560 and for the Evans and Selby site is S29.560.
It has come to my attention, that repairs have begun at the 3 rd and Evans site without the need for
construction documents. The repairs were performed on a rush basis by City workers because of
the importance of restoring AWSS service to that line and that neighborhood and the ability to
mobilize on short notice. The repairs were performed by SFFD plumbers and San Francisco
Water Deparatment truck drivers, operating engineers and carpenters. The repair consisted of
excavating and exposing the 12 inch pipe and replacing loosened rubber pipe gaskets. The labor
cost to perform the repair was SI 6,808. Planning and engineering design services were not
needed at this site because the repairs were simple enough to make in the field.
In addition to the labor costs are equipment and material costs (i.e. backhoe. dumptruck, crane
and steel plates), and the cost to repair the roadway (i.e. construct concrete roadbase and asphalt
concrete). The equipment and material cost estimate for the jepair is S2.734 and the cost
estimate to repair the roadway is S5.440.
I would like to revise the request for release of reserve funds for the 3 rd and Evans site only from
S29.560 to S24,982.
If you have any questions, please call me at 558-4045.
attachment
c: Project File
"IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO" We are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork,
customer service and continuous improvement in partnership with the community
City and County of San Francisco
Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor
Mark A. Primeau, AIA, Director
Attachment III, Page 1 of
- r*
\ -I) 558-402-1
'jn* FAX(415)558-45lJ
*» http://www.sfdpw.conl
Department of Public Work;
Project Management Divisioi
30 Van Ness Avenue. 5
San Francisco. CA 94102-6021
Kathryn How, Assistant City Enginee
Ml MORANDl'M
To:
Emilie Neumann
Budeet Analvst
Date: Februarv 29. 2000
From: Patrick Rivera
DPW-Project Manager
Subject: Clarification for AWSS Repair at s" and Evans and Evans and Selhy
Because there are various departments working on the two sites, the following is an explanation of the
responsibility of each department for each of the sites:
3 rd and Evans
SFWD: provide the operators, truck drivers, carpenters, equipment and materials required to
excavate the site in order to expose the leak. The cost for this work is S9.288.
SFFD: provide the plumbers in order to replace the damaged pipe gaskets. The cost for this
work is SI 0,254.
DPW: provide the cement finishers, laborers and equipment required to replace the roadway
section after all pipe repairs are complete. The cost for this work is S
Evans and Selbv:
DPW: provide the Mechanical Engineers required to prepare construction plans specifications
and estimates for the repair of the pipe leak. The cost for this work is S26.083.
DPT: provide the traffic engineers required to prepare the traffic routing plans needed during
construction. The cost for this work is $3,477
The standard practice for handling release of reserves and the transfer of funds to the various
departments and agencies is that DPW issues work orders. This way there is one point of contact for
handling the transaction and most importantly tracking the funds.-
If you have any questions, please call me at 558-4045
attachment
c: Project File
■IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated mcwouais committed to teamwork,
customer service and continuous imorovemem in oartnershic with the community
1 c.
2rd and Evans AWSS Pipe Repair
Ec jipmeni and Material Cost Estimate ror AWSS Repair
Attachment III
- u aee 2 or 3
Eacknoe
Dump Truck
Boom Truck
Steel Plate
Gaskets
Cry
24
24
24
Unit
Rate
Extension
hours
S
30.00
S
720.00
hours
S
36.00
S
864.00
hours
s
25.00
s
500.00
days
s
100.00
s
500.00
9acn
s
25.00
s
50.00
2.734.00
Cost Estimate to Repair Roacway
Backfill
Asohart Concrete
Concrete Ease
Later
Cty
26
2
144
1
Unit
tons
tens
si
lump su:m
Rate
10
1C0
20
2CC0
extension
S 360.00
S 200.C0
S 2.880.00
S 2.0O0.00
S 5.44Q.CC
8.174.00
Source: DeDartment of Public Works
ecuioment estimate
16
Attachment III
Page '1 or 5
COSTS DO NOT INCLUDE MATERIALS. PARTS OR PAVING. THESE COSTS ARE FOR LABOR ONLY
(Fire Department and Water Department)
SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT WORK SHEET
12" high-pressure main break
5:00PM Start Time
EACH
RATE
CLASSIFICATION
DATE
LOCATION
HOURS WORKED
TOTAL
overtime
1
S 69.00
7250 Utility Plumber Sud.
2/3/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
6
S 414.00
1
S 62.00
7388 Utility Plumber
2/3/00
EVANS & 3RD ST
6
S 37200
1
S 38.00
7514 General Laborer
2/3/00
EVANS & 3RD ST
6
S 228.00
TOTALS
S 1.014.00
5:00PM Start Time
EACH
RATE
CLASSIFICATION
DATE
LOCATION
HOURS WORKED
TOTAL
1
S 69.00
7250 Utility Plumber Sud.
2/4/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
6
S 414 00
2
$ 62.00
7388 Utility Plumber
2/4/00
EVANS & 3RD ST
6
S 744 00
1
S 38.00
7514 General Laborer
2/4/00
EVANS & 3RD ST
6
S 22300
TOTALS
S 1.386.00
5:00PM Start Time
EACH
RATE
CLASSIFICATION
DATE
LOCATION
HOURS WORKED
TOTAL
1
S 69.00
7250 Utility Plumber Sup.
2/6/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
14
S 966.00
2
S 62.00
7388 Utility Plumber
2/6/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
14
S 1,736 00
1
S 38.00
7514 General Laborer
2/6 00
EVANS & 3RD ST
14
S 532.00
1
S 49.00
7355 Truck Driver SFWD
2/6/00
EVANS & 3RD ST
14
S 686.00
1
S 58.00
7328 Oper. Eng. SFWD
2/6/00
EVANS & 3RD ST
14
S 812.00
1
S 54.00
7344 Carpenter SFWD
2/6/00
EVANS & 3RD ST
14
S 756.00
TOTALS
S 5,488.00
5:00PM Start Time
EACH
RATE
CLASSIFICATION
DATE
LOCATION
HOURS WORKED
TOTAL
1
S 69.00
7250 Utility Plumber Sud.
2/7/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
6
S 414.00
• 2
S 62.00
7388 Utility Plumber
2/7/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
6
S 74400
1
S 38.00
7514 General Laborer
2/7/00
EVANS & 3RD ST
6
S 22800
1
S 49.00
7355 Truck Driver SFWD
2/7/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
6
S 294 00
1
S 58.00
7328 Oper. Eng. SFWD j 2/7/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
6
S 348 00
2
S 54.00
7344 Carpenter SFWD 2/7/00
EVANS & 3RD ST.
6
S 648.00
TOTALS S 2.676.00
5:00PM Start Time
EACH
RATE
CLASSIFICATION DATE
LOCATION HOURS WORKED
TOTAL
1
S 69.00
7250 Utility Plumber Sud. j 2/12/00
EVANS & 3RD ST. | 14
S 956.00
2
S 62.00
7388 Utility Plumber j 2712/00
EVANS & 3RD ST | 14
1
S 38.00
7 51 4 General Laborer | 2/12/00
EVANS & 3RD ST. | ',4 |S 532.00
1
S 49.00
7355 Truck Driver SFWD | 2/12/00
EVANS & 3RD ST j 14 |S 686.00
1
S 58.00
7328 ODer. Eng. SFWD | 2/12/00
EVANS & 3RD ST. | 14 |S 812.00
2
S 54.00
7344 CarDenter SFWD | 2/12/00
EVANS & 3RD ST. | ',4 \S '.512.00
TOTALS I S 6.244.00
TOTAL COSTS IS 16.808.00
Source: Fire Department and Department of Public Works
17
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Items 3 and 4 - Files 00-0311 and 00-0412
1. Item 4, File 00-0311 is a hearing to consider the 1999-2000 Budget Status
Report issued by the Controller. Item 5, File 00-0412 is a hearing to consider the
Three Year Budget Projection joint report prepared by, the Mayor's Budget
Director, the Controller and the Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst.
2. The Controller's 1999-2000 Budget Status Report was prepared in
conformance with Charter Section 3.105 and issued on February 8, 2000. The report
is based on General Fund revenues received and appropriations expended through
the first six months of Fiscal Year 1999-2000, ending December 31, 1999. The report
noted that the City's revised FY 1999-2000 budget as of that date included
unappropriated reserves of $27.6 million. The Controller also projected that
projected actual revenues for FY 1999-2000 exceed the revised budget by §54.4
million and total estimated expenditures and transfers for FY 1999-2000 were $8.2
million less than appropriations. In total, therefore, the Controller projected a
favorable year end General Fund surplus of $90.2 million (comprised of the $27.6
million in unappropriated reserves, $54.4 million in projected excess revenues and
$8.2 million in estimated expenditure savings.)
3. At the time the Controller's 1999-2000 Budget Status Report was issued, the
Controller noted that the projected FY" 1999-2000 surplus of $90.2 million was $25.2
million less than the $115.4 million FY 1998-99 surplus used as a source of funds to
balance the FY 1999-2000 budget. Therefore, although the projected FY 1999-2000
budget surplus of $90.2 million indicated that the City remains in sound financial
condition, the fact that the projected General Fund surplus was less than the prior
year surplus used to fund the FY 1999-2000 budget indicated that the City would
have approximately $25.2 million less surplus funds to fund the FY 2000-2001
budget ($115.4 million less $90.2 million).
In addition to the Controller's 1999-2000 Budget Status Report issued after the first
six months of each Fiscal Year, the Controller also issues a follow-up nine month
Budget Status Report with updated estimates of the status of the General Fund
budget. The Controller's nine month report is typically issued in late April or early
May of each year.
4. On March 6, 2000, the Three Year Budget Projection joint report prepared by,
the Mayor's Budget Director, the Controller and the Board of Supervisors' Budget
Analyst was issued. This report is required by Administrative Code Section 3.6.
This report provides three year projections of General Fund revenues and other
sources of funds as well as the estimated cost of providing the current level of City
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
18
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
services using current business practices. The report is not intended to commit the
City to future spending levels. Such actual spending levels will be subject to the
availability of funds and policy decisions of the Mayor and Board of Supervisors.
The joint report projected revenue shortfalls for each of the next three Fiscal Years:
$24.4 million in the forthcoming FY 2000-01, $40.4 million in FY 2001-2002 and
$55.4 million in FY 2002-2003. The report emphasizes that all of these final
budgets, as required by State law, will be balanced and all projected shortfalls will
be eliminated.
5. The projected $24.4 million revenue shortfall for FY 2000-2001 is comprised
of the following key elements: a) a reduction of available surplus funds from the
prior year of $25.2 million as noted above; b) increased General Fund revenues of
$78.0 million (net of reduced Department of Public Health revenues amounting to
$11.7 million); and c) net increased estimated expenditures and uses of funds of
$77.2 million. In summary therefore, the reduced prior year surplus funds available
($25.2 million) and increased expenditures and uses of funds ($77.2 million) are
offset by a projection of $78.0 million in increased revenue, resulting in a projected
$24.4 million revenue shortfall for FY' 2000-2001.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
lq
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 5 - File 00-0348
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Department of Human Services (DHS)
Hearing to consider a release of $200,000 reserved in the
Department of Human Services Fiscal Year 1999-2000
budget to fund the CalWORKs College Scholarship
Program.
$200,000
General Fund monies reserved in the Fiscal Year 1999-
2000 Department of Human Services budget. During the
FY 1999-2000 budget hearings, the Finance and Labor
Committee recommended and the full Board of Supervisors
approved that $200,000 for the CalWORKs College
Scholarship Program be placed on reserve pending
submission of program budget details.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) is now
requesting a release of this $200,000 in reserved funds from
the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Department of Human Services
budget for the CalWORKs College Scholarship Program.
This scholarship program provides approximately $2,000
annually to eligible CalWORKs participants pursuing
college degrees that extend beyond their 18 to 24 month
limit on aid and services provided by CalWORKs. The
subject $200,000 in reserved funds would fund the first
year of the scholarship program, from June 2000 until June
2001, at an estimated cost of $140,000 for annual
scholarships ($2,000 each for approximately 70 students)
and $60,000 for administrative costs. Under CalWORKs.
families receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) must be enrolled in a personalized welfare to work
plan to qualify to receive aid. CalWORKs recipients must
move to employment within 18 to 24 months after enrolling
in their welfare to work plan. Recipients who do not move
to employment within 18 to 24 months will be penalized
and lose the adult portion of their aid (the children in the
family will continue receiving aid). 1
1 According to Ms. Janet Diamond of DHS, the 24-month time limit applies to recipients already
receiving aid when CalWORKs was first implemented in April 1998. The 18-month time limit applies
to recipients who applied for aid after the April 1998 implementation date.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
?n
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
One way CalWORKs recipients can meet their welfare to
work requirements during the first 18 to 24 months is to
enroll in an approved educational program or vocational
training. After 18 to 24 months, CalWORKs recipients will
lose the adult portion of their benefits if they do not find
employment or perform 32 hours a week of community
service.
The CalWORKs College Scholarship Program is designed to
support CalWORKs participants pursuing college degrees
that extend beyond their 18 to 24 month limit on aid and
services. According to Ms. Janet Diamond of DHS, the
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program will make up the
amount of cash aid a recipient loses for not meeting the
work/community service requirement (approximately
$1,200 annually per student) plus the costs of CalWORKs
benefits such as ;i Fasl Pass for parent and children
(approximately $800 annually per student), for an
estimated total of $2,000 annually per student. According
to Ms. Diamond, the exact amount of scholarship money
given i" a CalWORK- student would be based on the exact
amount of cash aid that particular student Lost due to being
penalized for not meeting work/community service
requirements
A community-based organization (CBO) would administer
the $2,000 per student CalWORKs College Scholarship
Program, as well as provide a mentoring service for
students receiving a CalWORKs scholarship. According to
Ms. Diamond. DHS will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP)
on March 9, 2000 to select a CBO to administer the
program. DHS estimates the administrative costs to be
$60,000 ($20,000 to be used in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and
$40,000 to be used in Fiscal Year 2000-2001). Ms. Diamond
reports that DHS will not have budget details for the CBO
administrative costs totaling $60,000 listed in the summary
budget shown below until DHS selects a CBO. Ms.
Diamond anticipates that DHS will select a CBO by April
30. 2000. Ms. Diamond advises that the CBO contract to
administer the scholarship would begin June 1. 2000 to
ensure enrollment of eligible student participants before
classes begin in August of 2000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
The subject $200,000 in reserved funds were reserved for
the current Fiscal Year 1999-2000. However, the
Attachment to this report, provided by DHS, explains that
DHS will not be able to spend $180,000 of the subject
$200,000 during Fiscal Year 1999-2000 because during this
fiscal year no CalWORKs college students will become
eligible for the CalWORKs College Scholarship Program.
DHS thus requests that the remaining $180,000 in reserved
funds be released as a project appropriation to be carried
forward to allow DHS to use the funds in Fiscal Year 2000-
2001, as explained in the Attachment.
The summary budget for the subject $200,000 in reserved
funds, to be used in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and Fiscal Year
2000-2001, is as follows:
CalWORKs College
Scholarship Program
FY
1999-2000
FY
2000-2001
Total
Combined
Estimated Number of Students
to Receive CalWORKs
Scholarships
70
70
Scholarship Funds (Estimated
82,000 per student per year)
$140,000
$140,000
Contract to CBO to Administer
Scholarship and Mentoring
Program
S20,000
40,000
60,000
Total Project Costs:
$20,000
$180,000
$200,000
Comments:
1. The Budget Analyst notes that DHS has not yet issued a
Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a CBO to administer
the CalWORKs College Scholarship Program, and thus
does not yet have details to support the administrative
costs, estimated to be $60,000 ($20,000 for Fiscal Year
1999-2000 plus $40,000 for Fiscal Year 2000-2001), as
listed in the summary budget shown above. According to
Ms. Diamond, DHS will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP)
on March 9, 2000 to select a CBO to administer the
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program. Ms. Diamond
anticipates that DHS will select a CBO by April 30, 2000,
and that the CBO contract to administer the CalWORKs
College Scholarship Program will begin June 1, 2000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
99
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends that the
subject resolution be amended to release $140,000, of the
total $200,000, in reserved funds for direct scholarship
costs as a project appropriation to continue forward for
DHS to use in Fiscal Year 2000-2001. The remaining
$60,000 in reserved funds budgeted for administrative costs
($20,000 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 plus $40,000 for Fiscal
Year 2000-2001) should remain on reserve until DHS has
selected a community-based organization to administer the
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program and DHS can
provide budget details for the program's administrative
costs.
3. Furthermore, as covered by DHS in the Attachment, the
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program is being funded
with "one-time only" monies. Since the proposed funds
would extend through June of Fiscal Year 2000-2001, DHS
advises that the department will not be requesting
additional funds for the subject scholarship program in the
upcoming Fiscal Year 2000-2001 budget. However,
according to Ms. Diamond, DHS plans to request an
additional estimated $200,000 in funding for the
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program for Fiscal Y'ear
2001-2002 in its Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget request.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed release of reserved funds to reduce
the requested amount of $200,000 to $140,000 (the
$200,000 request less the $60,000 budgeted for
administrative costs), in accordance with Comment No. 2
above.
2. Approve the release of $140,000 in reserved funri
amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
23
Attachment
Page 1 of 2
City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services
MEMORANDUM
March 7, 2000
TO: Emilie Neumann
Budget Analyst's-Office
FROM: Julie Brenman
Director of Planning and Budget
RE: CalWORKs Scholarships
This is to respond to some of your specific questions about DHS' request to release the
reserved funding for CalWORKs Scholarships.
Origin of Funding
During the FY 99-00 Budget hearings, the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee
placed S200,000 in the DHS budget for the CalWORKs scholarship program. This
funding was placed on reserve pending further program definition. The funding was also
designated as "one-time only" by the Finance Committee.
The CalWORKs Scholarship Program is designed to support CalWORKs participants
pursuing four year college degrees after their 1 8/24-month limit on services is reached.
The Board of Supervisors funded this program to allow eligible CalWORKs participants
that have reached their lS/24-month time limit to continue to attend college without
bearing a losing income. The scholarship will make up the amount of the lost cash grant.
Program Development and Timing
DHS established a community workgroup to develop the program, coordinate academic
resources with the scholarship fund, and ensure that the Department carries out the
Board's intentions. The workgroup is comprised of DHS staff. Advocates from Coleman
Advocates, Family Rights and Dignity. Lifetime, the Women's Democratic Forum,
administrators and staff from City College of San Francisco and San Francisco State
University. The workgroup recommended that the project management be contracted to a
community organization and DHS will issue an RFP this month.
We have not requested to spend any funds on CalWORKs Scholarships yet because no
CalWORKs college student will reach rusher 18/24 months of services during this fiscal
year. However, beginning in summer 2000. this will begin to occur. We plan to begin
services in June 2000 to ensure enrollment of eligible student participants before classes
beain in the August 2000.
(415)557-5000 P.O. Box 7988 San Francisco, California 94120
Attachment II
Page 2 of 2
Request for Project Budget
We are requesting the funds be placed into a project budget because the program must
follow an academic calendar, not a city fiscal calendar. The two calendars are not
compatible. In addition, the commitment of scholarship money will be for more than one
year and DHS will need to assure the students of financial support for the duration with
confidence. We are asking the student to take a sanction, an action we - and they - do
not take lightly. The process is not easy to institute and not easy to remedy. We must be
sure we are able to commit to the whole process until graduation.
As this program was funded with one-time money and because we were instructed to
submit a baseline budget for FY 00-01 that did not include any one-time programs, we
have not requested funding for the CalWORKs Scholarship program in FY 00-01. If
these funds are placed in a project budget, we anticipate that we will be able to meet all
program needs through June 2001 with the FY 99-00 allocation of S200.000.
Budget
The cost of managing the fund and the mentoring program is S60.000. The amount to be
spent in FY99-00 will be about $20,000 due to initial start-up costs. Since we have not
received the proposals from the community agencies yet. we cannot specify exactly how
the contractor will allocate the program resources. We will ensure that no more than
S60,000 is spent on administration of the program and services to program participants.
If less than S60.000 is needed for this component, we will reallocate an savings to the
scholarships themselves.
We have allocated SI 40.000 for the scholarships. This will serve approximately 70
students (each scholarship is calculated based on loss of aid. which vanes by case, so we
cannot provide exact amounts). New students will become eligible each month as they
reach their 24-month limit on services.
If you have any additional questions, please contact me at 557-5641.
2S
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 6 - File 00-0183
Department: Tax Collector
Item: Ordinance amending Article 6 of Part III of the San
Francisco Municipal Code by providing that any
claim for refund of Business Taxes paid be filed
within six months from the time the return was
filed or the tax was paid, whichever period expires
later, with the exception that in no event shall such
period expire prior to the shortest period allowable
for filing tax refund claims under Title 1, Division
3.6, Part 3, Section 911.2 of the California
Government Code.
Description: The proposed ordinance would replace the City's
current three-3 r ear and 90-day limitation periods
for filing a claim for the refunding of overpayments
or erroneous payment of Business Taxes (i.e.,
Payroll Taxes and Gross Receipts Taxes) paid to
the City with one new six-month limitation period,
as established by the California Tort Claims Act.
Currently, the City has a 90-day limitation period
for filing claims for Business Tax refunds based on
United States and California Constitutional and
statutory issues and a three-year limitation period
for filing claims for Business Tax refunds based on
all other issues.
Under the proposed ordinance, the limitation of
time would be six months regardless of the type of
claim. This six-month period would extend from the
time the Business Tax Return was due to the City,
or the Business Taxes were paid to the City,
whichever of these periods expires later, until the
verified written claim stating the specific grounds
for filing the claim was submitted to the Tax
Collector. The proposed ordinance would also add
language that the written claim for refunds must
contain specificity sufficient to enable the Tax
Collector to understand and evaluate the claim.
In addition, the proposed ordinance states that the
period to file the claim for the Business Tax refund
cannot expire before the shortest period allowable
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
for filing the tax refund claim under Title 1.
Division 3.6, Part 3. Section 911.2 of the California
Government Code, which is the current California
Tort Claims Act, or any successor provision as
amended from time to time.
The proposed ordinance also states that these new
provisions would not apply to extinguish existing
causes of action. However, any causes of action thai
are not time-barred as of the effective date of this
ordinance, would expire six months after the
effective date of this amendment, or on the date
such cau>< of action would ha\ i. whichever
occurs tn>t. According to Mr. George Putris of the
City Attorney's Office, this provision pertains to
existing claims against the City for Business Tax
refund-. Buch that, if the proposed ordinance is
approved, as of the effective date of this ordinance.
the statute of limitation for existing claims will be
either (1) reduced to six months, as proposed under
this ordinance or (2) the amount of time remaining,
if it is less than six months. The Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors is also directed to remove this
specific transitional provision from Section 6.15-1
of the City's Administrative Code after 42 months
(3.5 years) of the effective date of this ordinance.
Comments: 1. Mr. Pat Mahoney of the City Attorney's Office
advises that, to date. Business Tax claims for
refunds have been filed by over 70 different
business entities seeking refunds in excess of $100
million from the City and County of San Francisco.
According to Mr. Mahoney, from the over 70 claims
filed, five separate lawsuits have resulted, with the
expectation that additional lawsuits will be filed.
Mr. Mahoney reports that, on March 3, 2000, San
Francisco Superior Court heard taxpayer motions
for summary judgement on the first two lawsuits,
filed by General Motors and Eastman Kodak
against the City. According to Mr. Mahoney, the
Superior Court issued tentative rulings rejecting
the plantiffs' claim that the City's Business Tax
was unconstitutional as a matter of law. The Court
also tentatively struck down the City's current
statute of limitation of 90 days, which is the subject
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Mahoney advises
that the General Motors and Eastman Kodak cases
are presently set for trial on May 30, 2000.
2. According to Mr. Mahoney, the City Attorney's
Office is now recommending that the proposed
ordinance be amended to a six-month period, as a
result of a recent recommendation by the League of
California Cities.
3. ^According to Mr. Mahoney, the City previously
selected the 90-day period because, as a Charter
City, the City has sovereign power over municipal
affairs under Article XI, Section 5, Subdivision (a)
of the California Constitution to adopt claim-filing
procedures and periods of limitations independent
of the enabling legislation contained in Title 1,
Division 3.6, Part 3 of the California Government
Code. Mr. Mahoney advises that the current 90-day
limitation period was established to provide prompt
notice to the City and County of San Francisco
regarding any legal challenges to the validity of
taxes imposed by the Municipal Code. Such prompt
notice allows the City to cure any defects in the
taxes during the current taxable year and thereby
protect the City's revenues for that fiscal year.
4. Extending the current 90-day (three month)
period for filing constitutional claims to six months
will provide an additional three-month period for
businesses to file such tax refund claims with the
City. However, the proposed ordinance will also
reduce the current three year (36 month) limitation
period for all other claims to the same six-month
period, and thereby reduce this limitation period by
30 months. Mr. Mahoney advises that since the
proposed ordinance would both reduce the period of
time permitted for some claimants which may
potentially reduce the number of claims filed, while
simultaneously increasing the period of time
permitted for other claimants, which may
potentially increase the number of claims filed, the
fiscal impact of such changes is uncertain. The
Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Annual Appropriation
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Ordinance includes total Business Tax revenu*
$246,450,000.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
29
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 7 - File 00-0309
1. This item is a hearing to discuss the possibility of submitting a bond
initiative to the electorate for the November of 2000 ballot to address (a) the
infrastructural needs of the Department of Public Health (DPH) Community Health
Network, including San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) and the primary care
centers, and (b) placement of City health clinics in San Francisco's public schools.
2. DPH has identified four main areas requiring capital improvements in
the next three to five years. These areas include (a) capital investments for repair
and renovation of SFGH and -the primary care centers throughout the City, (b)
capital improvements to DPH Population Health and Prevention facilities, (c) State-
mandated seismic retrofitting or replacement of SFGH, and (d) a new ambulatory
care center and research facility to be located on the SFGH campus 1 . Additionally,
the DPH has estimated that the masonry buildings on the SFGH campus will
require extensive seismic retrofitting, as noted below. The attached memorandum
provided by DPH (Attachment I) provides an explanation of these proposed capital
improvements.
3. A summary of the estimated capital improvement costs is as follows:
Capital Investments, Community Health Network
SFGH
Primary Care Centers
Population Health and Prevention Facilities
State-mandated Seismic Retrofitting
and Upgrades at SFGH
New Medical Clinic and Research Facility
Total
$12,877,300
14,184.057
856,000
19,350,000
51.650.000 to 61.800.000
$98,917,357 to $109,067,357
4. According to Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH, many of the proposed
capital improvement projects at SFGH and in the primary care centers were
identified previously but not implemented due to insufficient funding. Mr. Eric
Miller, Director of DPH Facilities Management, states that the proposed capital
improvement projects at SFGH, totaling $12,877,300, would (a) increase the
outpatient capacity of the Rehabilitation Department. Emergency Department, and
Wound Care Clinic, (b) improve the public's access to the SFGH campus, (c) provide
funding to develop a long-range master plan for the SFGH campus, with particular
emphasis on the seismic improvement requirements of SB 1953 (see below), and (d)
1 DPH did not provide information on capital improvements at Laguna Honda Hospital since the
voters approved a bond measure in November of 1999 for the rebuilding of Laguna Honda Hospital.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
30
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
various other projects, including improvement of the campus computer network,
repair of roof membranes, upgrade of patient television installations, and
replacement of mechanical components Approximately $1,500,000 in maintenance
costs is included in the estimate of $12,877,300.
The DPH priority capital improvements at the 20 primary 'are centers, for a total
estimated cost of $14,184,057, include (a) expansion of clinic exam rooms, (b)
reconfiguration of eligibility areas at several health centers to expedite processing of
patients, (c) improvement of public access to the clinics, and (d) approximately
$500,000 in maintenance project- According to Ms. Zmuda, DPH has designated
four health clinics as high priority: Maxim- Hall Health Center located at 1301
Pierce Street, Southeast Health Center located at -1"1 Keith Street. North of
Market Clinic located at 333 Turk Street, and Silver Avenue Family Health Cent<-r
located at 1525 Silver Avenue. Capital improvement projects at these four health
centers include renovation of existing space to provide more clinical space.
Attachment II, provided by DPH. contains an explanation and costs detail- of the
proposed capital improvement projects for San Francisco General Hospital and the
primary care centers.
5. The DPH Population Health and Prevention Division estin
$856,000 in capital repairs, including repairs to the Central Administration
Building located at 101 Grove Street and to the Redwood Center mental health
facility, located in Redwood City. Additionally, of the estimated $856,000 in capital
projects, $450,000 would be allocated to facilities maintenance projects (Attachment
III).
6. SB 1953, which was approved by the State Legislature in 1996,
requires acute care hospitals such as SFGH to meet a higher -tandard of seismic
performance before the year 2030. All hospitals are required to perform a seismic
safety evaluation and submit a written report to the State for official review by
January 1. 2001. Additionally, each acute care hospital must submit a compliance
plan to the State before January 1. 2002, describing the proposed remediation of
seismic deficiencies. According to Ms. Zmuda, DPH has issued a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) and will select a consultant team by April of 2000 to perform
an assessment of the hospital's seismic performance needs. The consultant team
will begin an evaluation of the SFGH seismic performance needs this year,
including a geotechnical evaluation, a detailed structural engineering review and
analysis of the structural frame, and a complete survey of non-structural systems
serving hcipitalized patients. These studies include evaluations of the SFGH main
hospital building, the power plant, and major utility systems located in service
tunnels. The consultant team will also assess specific hospital subsystems (medical
gases, electrical power, water, fire sprinklers), which are required by SB 1953 to
meet more stringent seismic requirements. These hospital subsystem requirements
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
31
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
are to be phased in between 2002 and 2008. The consultant's technical report,
evaluating the hospital's seismic deficiencies, will be submitted to the State prior to
January 1, 2001. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH will request $2,050,000 in the FY
2000-2001 Capital and Facilities Maintenance budget for immediate seismic
upgrades. Attachment IV, provided by DPH, contains an explanation of these
proposed seismic upgrades and related costs. An additional estimated amount of
$17,300,000 will be required over the next six years (through FY 2005-2006) to
perform seismic retrofitting work at SFGH, for a total estimate of seismic work of
$19,350,000. Attachment IV also provides an explanation for the additional
estimated $17,300,000 in seismic upgrade costs ($19,350,000 less $2,050,000).
7. The DPH Community Health Network has proposed the development
of a new Medical Clinic and Research Facility at SFGH. According to Mr. Miller,
the 10 masonry buildings on the SFGH campus, housing the ambulatory care
clinics, are obsolete and seismically at-risk. The proposed Medical Clinic and
Research Facility, which would consist of approximately 120,000 square feet, would
provide space for primary care and urgent care clinics, psychiatric services, and HIV
outpatient services. Additionally, the facility would provide space for clinical
activities that need to be relocated during the seismic retrofitting and upgrading of
the main hospital. Mr. Miller states that the proposed Medical Clinic and Research
Facility would also provide research laboratory and clinical research space to
University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) faculty. According to Mr. Miller,
such research facilities are necessary to recruit and retain medical staff, and that
extra-mural research funding covers a percentage of the salaries of medical staff
who provide care to Community Health Network patients. Additionally, Mr. Miller
advises that the U.C. Regents will not enter into leases in seismically at-risk
facilities after 2008. As shown in Attachment V, provided by DPH, the total
estimated cost of the proposed Medical Clinic and Research Facility ranges from
$51,650,000 to $61,800,000.
8. As noted above, the ten masonry buildings on the SFGH campus require
extensive seismic upgrades. According to Mr. Miller, the Department of Public
Works Bureau of Architecture estimated the cost of such upgrades to be
approximately $142,000,000. Currently, these buildings are used for outpatient
services, offices, and research space. Mr. Miller states that, under the proposed
Medical Clinic and Research Facility plan, outpatient services and some research
space would be moved to the new Medical Clinic and Research Facility. 2 Mr. Miller
states that a general seismic repair program has not been fully formulated. Mr.
Miller advises that seismic retrofitting costs are extensive and the estimated
2 According to Mr. Miller, the proposed new Facility would contain 25.000 square feet of research
space, compared to approximately 300,000 square feet of research space in the masonry buildings.
Mr. Miller states that some research space will be moved to the UCSF facility at Mission Bay, but
that DPH will have a continued need for approximately 100.000 square feet of research space in
addition to the proposed new Facility.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
32
Memo to Finance and Labor Commr
March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Comrr. iting
schedule of repairs would be approximately 10 years. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH
will evaluate both the costs and possible uses of these buildings.
9. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH is developing a strategic plan, which will
define the level and scope of health services provided over the next several years.
The recommendations of the strategic plan will be presented to the Health
Commission prior to December 31. 2000. A- stated in Attachment I.
recommendations from the strategic planning process may result in revisions to the
proposed capital plan. Ms. Zmuda advises that the proposed capital requirement-
pending the results of the DPH strategic planning process and the SFGH seismic
performance evaluation, are preliminary
10. According to Mr. Enrique Navas of the San Francisco Unified School
District (SFUSD), the SFUSD has not undertaken an assessment of the capital
lequirements and costs of implementing a school-based health clinic proirram.
11. According to Mr. Ben Rosenfield of the Mayor's Office, in order to
qualify for the November of 2000 ballot. DPH would have to submit details
support the proposed bond measure for DPH capital improvement program- to the
Capital Improvement Advisory Committee by M DO. If the proposed bond
measure is approved by the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, the Board of
Supervisors would have to adopt an ordinance on or before July 24. 2000. for the
submission of the bond measure to the voters in the November of 2000 election.
12. According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office of Public
Finance, the City Charter provides for a legal debt limit of three percent of net
assessed property value. The Mayor's Office of Public Finance has calculated the
City's Debt Limit Ratio as follows:
Total City Debt Limit for FY 1999-2000 1 14.446.916
Outstanding General Obligation Bonds 897.900.000
Remaining General Obligation Bond Capacity SI. 216. 546. 916
Ms. Hollenbeck states that an additional SS10.545.000 in General Obligation Bonds
have been authorized by the voters but have not yet been issued. Of this amount,
the Mayor's Office of Public Finance expects to issue S393.085.000 prior to
December 31. 2000. as follows:
Community College District S 29.605.000
San Francisco Zoo 15.000.000
Affordable Housing 20.000.000
San Francisco Unified School District 29.480.000
Laguna Honda Hospital 299.000.000
Total S393.085.000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
33
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 15. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Additionally, on March 7, 2000, the voters approved the Recreation and Park
Department's $110,000,000 bond issue. As of the writing of this report, the outcome
of the Academy of Sciences' S87.445.000 bond issue has not been decided. Approval
of both bond issues would authorize an additional S 197.445.000 in General
Obligation Bonds. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the Mayor's Office of Public Finance
expects to issue $5,000,000 in Academy of Sciences bonds prior to December 31,
2000, in addition to the $393,085,000 noted above, totaling $398,085,000.
[arvey M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Erin McGrath
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3h
City and County of San Francisco
Attachment I
Page 1 o"F~
Department of Public Health
Mitchell H. Katz, M.D.
Director of Health
Date: March 7, 2000
Memo To: Harvey Rose
Budget Analvst
From: Monique Zmuda
Chief Financial Officer
Re: Capital Requirements for Department of Public Health Facilities
This memo is in response to requests for information regarding the hearing of the Finance
and Labor Committee on the capital requirements for the Department of Health.
The Department of Health has evaluated the capital needs for its clinical facilities for the
next three to five years, and has prepared proposals for the consideration by the Board of
Supervisors and the Mayor. The following pages summarize the capital needs for the
Department of Public Health's acute care hospital and clinics. (This report excludes
capital projects for Laguna Honda Hospital since it will be rebuild over the next seven
years).
Our initial assessment of facilities indicates that the Department of Health requires capital
investments for repair and renovation of our primary care clinics throughout the
community. Renovations are required to provide additional examination rooms and other
clinical space, to improve patient flow, and to expand dental service areas. In the area of
acute care, the Department of Health must comply with the SB 1953 Facilities Seismic
Safety Act which requires SFGH to meet a higher standard of seismic performance. This
requirement will result in seismic retrofit or replacement of San Francisco General
Hospital. The Department also proposes to build a new ambulator.' care and research
facility on the grounds of the San Francisco General Hospital campus. This facility will
relocate outpatient clinical services and medical research activities (for which the
Department collects rental income) that are currently in the seismically compromised
masonary buildings to this new facility. Finally, the Department proposes to complete
seismic renovation of the masonary buildings at SFGH. These buildings, once renovated
could be used administrative and other non-clinical uses, as well as for intermediate care,
independent living or other supportive services.
The attached report contains four components: 1 ) A list of capital improvements required
to SFGH, the hospital based clinics, and the community based clinics; 2) A summary of
the implementation of SB 1953 for SFGH: 3) A summary of the proposed construction of
(415) 554-2600
101 Cove Street
35
San Francisco. CA 94102
Attachment I
Paee 2 of 2
the medical clinic and research facility and renovation of red brick buildings and 4) A
summary of the need to complete seismic renovation of the masonary buildings at SFGH.
The Department is in the process of developing a strategic plan, which will define the
level and scope of services that will be provided over the next several years. The
recommendations of the strategic plan will be presented to the Health Commission by
year-ending 2000. The recommendations from the strategic planning process may result
in revisions to the capital plan presented in this report.
In addition, the Department is in the process of conducting a facility seismic assessment
of San Francisco General Hospital. This includes a geotechnical evaluation, detailed
structural review and analysis of the frame, and a survey of non-structural systems
serving non-ambulatory patients. Results of this assessment will better define the
components of the SB 1953 project for the next several years. The Department is also
involved in a detailed ADA assessment of all of our facilities. As such, these projections
of capital requirements for the Department of Health should be considered preliminary
until the results of the strategic planning process and the seismic assessment studies have
been completed.
Attachment I
Page 1 of 4
s ofl
,5 z '->
- § >. 2 ?< J 1 s 8 =
oC
Z
£ 5c u --: 5
—
5
y.
3^5^ = = I 2 « I I
g I I a i 1 | | = | |
•5 S = = = * rf - - ^ 2 - U = <
u- r <
>| ^ - 3 3 3 - : .Si, a .- <
— • - > \r -j- ., P *£ — ^c
1 1 < g .f 2 | £ t = s> -= - = | 5 b -5 =
x o 3 o s 5 s < = : ^ : i: '- ^ii.E = > k q
-r «i - o «a « ,v d ^ n n < S a2 E O va -£ Z
^ ag «j as £ U Va <
37
Attachment II
fage 2 of 4
o 3J
> = < 5 =
"
CJ
ci
u
>
:<
tu
u
~
j*
t2
—
o
>
vi
•-
u
E-
-5
C
U
u
yj
iO
~
.£: s oo o
o
CO
-
>
ii
E:
>
S
-
~
^
s
>
Li
Q.
-E
o
-^
3
-
"2
™
E
u
o
o
u
u
u
<
<
a
o
u
d
o
u
><
o
o
u
2? 5
scE:
1
CJ
o
u
>1
>
o
y
y
- — E 5
E/3
E °
CJ
5 £ o u
o — .-
o
-• « -1 ° S 2,
r^ T3 = a sovjaS-S-P-oSoooosSoslSd-Soo^o P_ o -2 s: rs
ogoooggggggoog g
o N s S [2 o" coo l-; -r' o" S g o" l-;
m — -*- Lj i^ x x t— <3 w n ,- z« I s - r«-
Z _
O 2
r o " - -
O E '^5
^-> '~> u ~ r; « -t - - k — y H _ -
~ — ± ~ — «o so ea u •— ~ — ~ —
. E . * v "- E 5? r 1 '— — v. - - q = U ;j <
~ < S Er U '~ "E < ?J
.2 u * cm Er as — u — t>c ~
< e •=
U « "5 - - «
— — = E.= 3 - > -^ E: — >^
?? ~ S — U rj Z — '— — '- ~
38
o
O
o
o
Attachment II
Fage 3 of 4
r- tc t. o —
— — — :sj r\)
_± ■-
U =
^ J Z
ff I 2
5 5
-/ <~
39
SO
_~
5
—
5
-
s
a
o
C3
O
o
o
o
'5
c/i
- o — o
Attachment II
Page A of 4
O U _ c/5 ->
s t> p; >, . <
— — H -^ - ~.
5 C c« — 5. r
o o U « 5 =
q o "T P o U
— "S O o — o to
CM .§ M^-S
~J 3 "" W! "^ O P
? {j <S H ~ -c n
'— <■> 5. 5 = a "
— ~* 5 "5 ~~ 2 P
u — £
DO
2-5 o = u - u
!><j a .- O —
.2 5-> -Z
8 o
§ s ^ a 2 £
s ■ = — - ^ <j
u = o = -- 3? '->
o — X- J ^ - > —
to *— to
40
Attachment II
g
fS
-
o
o
Q
1
o
u
q_
cT
o
CM
>
b
2
<
-
Q
I
u
5 3
5? P
2 W — =
x —
w rz -
y «5 =
~ < t
- v .y -
' 3 b3 =
'j - = ■'
— f.
15
ji -*
= ° > o o
o « o o ~
- 2 "S « «
y " a. - g
a. ~ t> s
u " « 1!
- P 3? 5
£>0 a.
— o
«S O — 3 - :2
W ~ o •_, O - -
-H -s -. S
2
=
o
O
o
,0
l«
_u
ai
U
>
p
u
u
t/a
-
u 3 o s
E K -
- >
U ft, ftfl «j i -
v. — —
:o2i!n
:> 9
= 1-8
£ ~ 3
Q
10
JJ
S
cm
ftl
ft)
o 5
—
c
—
L 5
~ k
o
o ^
w >.
r;
>
y
ft)
'■j "^
jz o
B
—
r-
5
1.".
r- 'zL-
ft)
_J
u
>< ~
s
5
=
r
to
o -
£
•_/
u
~
„
Qi 5
ft)
Kg
s
p —
(^.
'«
3
s
i2
u
u
o
ft)
W3 2
'5 li
o
ft)
.M
H
>
r
ft)
S ■—
3
te
5
u
u
u
3
3
ftl
3
o ,_2
.2 5
r:
-^
■j
^
tj
—
u
"C >
o
B
■^
JI
DC
u
OB K
5
y
ftl
1
y
-
ej
>
■c
_o —
"3 ~
«C ft)
2 —
3
^.
-y.
^
>
U
'C
y
bl
|
-3
y
"'
ft)
ftl
- s:
2
U
"5
Du
r^
u
u
3 y
,3
>!
(6
w
ft) 3
2
_y
-
s
= '
o
f.^
H P
U
>
p
o
u
ft)
u
s
ftl
o _I
2
-
s
: J
-
>.
-
Si
~
O
o
q.
O
O
q
o
o
q
-
o"
ta
--c
u
If)
B
^-
I ! 1
y
3 S
'- ~
3 B
- >
^ V-
2 IT
^ o g
41
Attachment IV
3^
"55 o
£t<Tj 5
o -B .2
5 &|
g 5 °
.2 * .a
r j
o
CU _co
O & T3
y ., o
CO
o
O CJ ~ -^
o ^ o c
" o
C O
o
Bj
a
g u .
■3 s -
1 § s
• G j2 CJ
jo J2 T3
c«
bC
o
,_ G ° <- °
o
«s -2 o
H 2 o
o
o .^
a — o
r s >
r^ O O
a o -
.S U °
^ .is
to G4
o o
° 8. -2
K ») ;
Co""
O J^ ^ v
2 T3 3 — ~
■SS-= is 5
i., cj
Cl, o
^ G
SO o
^ -3
>. g
G ^
a 5
3 G
-G o
-G G 5-i to 2
■a & «
u 00
G ^
.2 G
e3 CJ
o £
o p
«s g
o
G o
o T3
in "C
co O
° "o
U £
>> 3
co u o > G
—j n d < vXJ
O
2* 7?
^1 O
i-G £ -G <^>
^ o ^
CO
O
G - o .2
co ,-
3.2
M co
•-C G
O G _: G
o
2 2 "g
_^ CO
CO
-G T^ O _y
o -* iu
° '-G 5 G
£ E, § |
G r- (J >
o 3 >, 2
CO co .-G ^
G S > G
-G O --G ts
^ U3 U .O
r^ ."G "C3 'C
n S § .2?
TO
K
G>
CJ
•H
E
CO
^;
CC
_S
cu
«
K
CJ
C5
2
to
O
CJ
CJ
es
5/5
u
-r;
_o
O
r^
u
'^
-—
.~
■rt
o
cu
c/j
o
w
•-
T3
^^
o
.—
es
O
13
<
Vj
*«s.
o
o
59
a
i
—
CJ
, — s
g
to
_
=5
CO
U
2
D-
,o
Q
'S
! .
CJ
^^
Q.
r^
T>
CD
^
—
g
^j
~
ss
o
i —
W3
3
-
O
CJ
^
•^
— ■
4J
CJ
o
Cu,
CM
: -
g
>
Q
O
—
3.
o
CJ
"§)
o
CM
W3
1
u
w
p
,o
u
5
es
■c
cG
_^
p
3
CJ
p
o
o
S
£
es
o
3
o
u
ej
W3
.~
Ci
£Z
trT
a.
CJ
CM
in
o
"*
—
^
o
iS
<Ti
5.
LTj
,6C
17.
o
o
,—
u
Bfl
E
rj
3
c75
~
u
Q
U
£
c?5
o
o
o
o
o
o.
O
O
o
o
o
q
o
o
q.
o
o
CM
CN
C 1
CM
6
CM^
LO
q.
V,
<^
'S,
— «
cm"
o<l
'_
a
—*
n
K
5;
-
00
CJ
o
g
o
^
CM
^
' '
O
u
>
CO
CS
00
o
o
o
CM
o
o .— r
.O s. -3
o
o q«
•\ o
-ej" O
o o
M
O
>
oo
D
O
<
o
U3
CM
^*^
U.
O
U
__
>
—
O
CJ
T5
CS
—
2
O
O
o
o
C/0
o
CJ
u
,o
_ :
r i£
o
, - o
o °~
\ o
L-J O
o o^
<»^ u. <•>
A?
Attachment V
O V Vi —
^ J^ ~ - ~
^
\r.
~—
_>
u ~ ~ >-> "c
-
—
o > —
> •"' — O —
u
<
- ~ > o o
o
—
—
—
a
g
73
~
£S
- 2 'J x
>
^.
V
u : «j p :
o
s.
>
3.2 o-g-S.
— i
•-'.
>
o
EX O. o O
X
o
>
"P.
o
— — - — o <3
~ ~ o o
o ^ ° — _L
o
u
o
p 1
—
~
~
~
>•
s E "a jd -
o
■-'.
n
u
o
'p'
° g a w
2 P G" - -
~ — CJ O —
V,
ttJ
u
—
Q.
a a. ~ u —
~
■5 o °
DP 4 4?
— — • CJ
-y. ~ .-
3 S =
_ ■-. — ->
■y.
- o
- s E
? _2 J - _- r
5 = *
U C5 -
OC O
— '-r ■=
rE ** " -
'5 o o
,~ — ^
*- -Jj
o d =
= ""- - o
r -
_ 5
T3 5
— O i. p
- r- -
-'.
ES 5
_ v.
;—
a
~. Z
y
r
^ ,
—
-
o
~
-.'
'
.'
1 — —
— ■
z
- W
*^
:-'.
u
— p
_
—
CJ
c;
(j
3 —
u
1/5
=
= T3
-
j
_ o
— 'j,
—
X
^. —
—
L
~
Vj •—
-_
t/;
—
^.
c5
^
'-^
—
^
v.
~
--
fe^ —
U
--
~ ~ ~ 2
-^ -S '~ =
■y. o _> . - >
= b ^ - =
fill!
— — - t/s ~
fe o 5 2
— ** ■> ~ ^>
- — _ — ^ el s a."
S |8g | -.§■■= ■§
—
—
o
o
o
o o o c
-
_
o
o
o
o
o
o o o o
o o o o
Q
O^
q.
o_
q.
o
q, q. o q,
o c^ o o_
' -
q
o
o"
o"
o"
d
o" o" o" o"
-j
d o* d d
~'
Q
o
o
o
o
o
u-. O l- C
o o c- o
o
o„
L*.
<q
c.
o
CM L" C 3C
L-. 'C 55 N
N
vc
IT)
y"
ri
_"
;-"
V: _"^ W
v"
fj" _* ^ : -f
-'"
JfJ
*4
■0^
v^
44
C V: C
^
<^ <>*■ c 44
^
. *
«•
G
C
Q
n
o -S O O
Mr
o c n a
M
*^
o
O
o
O
o - o c
q. o °- °.
2
o o ^ o
<
o
Vj
o
o
o
o
o
~
o o -. o
p
— ,
o
o
q,
q,
q
c o o" o*
-^
q q, o q
g
s
O
q,
o*
o"
o*
Q
L". -T L". L*.
— s en l-.
■^
d d 2 d
-^
£
6"
o
o
o
CM
o
Li
o o i; o
N Pi I-
l"
L-
U
o"
•44
Vr
v^
CM
4>«r
:< K
J." — CM*
/■ ~.
-.
^_
4"r
bj
< -c
C- S
H
L-
U
Jp
.- V.
P ^
r:
t*
—
^
^.
J
J
^
■c
^ *\
c;
^J
^j
5
^
u —
w
o
->
£
V-.
V
^"
.1- F
2
u
^
JT 1 *
t:
5
"^
"^
^ ^
^
-
^
be
^
|
w^"
*2 •$* ~ — '-
5
5> Z p -2 £_
r^
1
"^
, w
«5
5
C
§ < i 1 3
- ^-
5 ac !2 tj 'J
b
<
"S
\
,3
h
^^
2
.5
^
5
%
■ —
City and County of £an Francisco
Meeting Minutes
Finance and Labor Committee
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano
Clerk: Mary Red
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
94102-4689
Wednesday, March 22, 2000
10:00 AM
Regular Meeting
City Hall, Room 263
Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano.
Members Absent: Sue Bierman.
Meeting Convened
The meeting convened at 10:04 a.m.
REGULAR AGENDA
DOCUMENTS DEPT
MAR 2 7 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
000235 |Approving the concession leases of Travelex America, Inc. to operate two (2) ATM facilities at the
Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $240,500 for each lease]
Resolution approving two Automated Teller Machine Leases for the existing and New International Terminal
Buildings between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission. (Airport Commission)
2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
3/1/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 8, 2000.
3/8/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 22, 2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Jon Ballesteros, Airport.
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000236 [Approving the concession lease of Travelex America, Inc. to operate a foreign currency exchange office
at the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of 54,127,500]
Resolution approving the Foreign Currency Exchange Lease in the Existing and New International Terminal
Buildings between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission. (Airport Commission)
2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSK INED to Finance and Labor Committee.
3/1/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 8, 2000.
3/8/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 22, 2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Jon Ballesteros, Airport.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 9:<0 AM on .? 7) 00
Finance an J Labor Commlttt
Meeting Minute
Man h 22, 2000
000318 (Approving award of New International Terminal Fine Dining Restaurant Lease to (;(^( Holdings. Ine.
at a ■ i ■■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 u i ■ i annual rent of SI 34.300 for the first year|
Resolution approving New International Terminal line Dining Restaurant I. ease to < iO< Holdings, Inc., a
certified disadvantaged business enterprise, and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through
its Airport Commission. (Airport Commission i
2/16/00, RECEIVI DAND ASSIGN! Dtol rnanceand l iter Committee
3/8/00, C( )N I INI IED Continued to March 22, 2000.
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballesteros, Supervisor Ammiano,
Supervisor Yee
RECOMM1 NDEDby the following Note:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000379 (Implementing the provisions ol MOl between MI V and Superior Court for the period 10/1/99
through 9/30/01]
Ordinance implementing the pro\ isions of the Memorandum of I nderstanding between the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco and the Municipal Executives Association (Superior Courts)
0. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to I inance and I abor Committee
Heard in committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Gordon Park-Li, Assistant CEO. Superior
Court: Supervisor Yee Amended to provide salary rale UU I
tMENDI n
Ordinance implementing retroactive to October 1. 1999, the provisions of the Memorandum of I nderstanding
between the Superior Court of California, Count) of San I rancisco and the Municipal Executives Association.
(Superior Courts)
RECOMMENDED \s Oil MUD by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000380 (Establishing rates of pay and other economic benefits for va ri ou s unrepresented classes in the Superior
Court effective 10/1/99 through 9/30/00|
Ordinance selling the rates of compensation and other economic benefits for certain management
classifications of persons employed by the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. (Superior
Courts)
••>. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Gordon Park-Li. Assistant CEO. Superior
Court; Supervisor Yee Amended to provide salary rati five to October 1 , 1999.
IMENDED.
Ordinance setting retroactive to October 1, 1999, the rates of compensation and other economic benefits for
certain management classifications of persons employed by the Superior Court of California. County of San
Francisco. (Superior Courts)
RECOMMENDED \S VMENDEDb) the following sote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
Cify and County of San Francisco
Primed at 9:51 .0/ on 1 73 0(1
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes March 22, 2000
000381 [Salary rate change for Pro Tem Commissioner in the Superior Court]
Ordinance setting the rate of compensation for Superior Court Classification 0256 (Pro Tem Commissioner)
employed on an "as needed" basis by the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. (Superior
Courts)
2/28/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gordon Park-Li, Assistant CEO, Superior
Court; Supervisor Yee.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M.
000413 [Quality of Life - 24th Street and Mission corridor]
Supervisor Ammiano
Hearing to examine the quality of life and economic development of the 24th Street and Mission corridor
which spans from 1 8th Street to Cesar Chavez and from Potrero to Guerrero Streets.
3/6/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Tony Hester, Mission Agenda; Ted Lakey, Deputy Cm
Attorney; Betty Trainer, North of Mission Neighborhood Association; Luis Pardo, Friends of Urban Forest;
Tom Radulovich, Director. Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD); Debra Johnson. Government and
Community Relations, BARTD; Dan Ritz, Mission Economic Development Association (MEDA); Steven Liu.
Chinese Merchants Association; Troy Otomoto, Public Health Department; Henry Diaz, Department of Public
Works; Kate Duram, Human Sendees Department; Joe LaTorre. Mayor's Office of Housing; Lisa Pagon,
Project Manager, Mission Housing; Philip Dochow; Maria Poblet, Mission SRO Collorative; Chris Daly.
Mission Agenda; Oscar Grande. PODER; Eric Quezada; Cesar Peralta; Andrew Wood. ODC Theater; Dr.
Norma Tecson, Executive Director, Filipino American Council; Carla Wilson; Sergio Canjura; Lizette
Hernandez, MEDA; Kathy Phillips, St. Johns Education Thresholds Center; Jonathan Youtt, Cellspace;
Commandar William Travis Gibson, BARTD Police.
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 9: 5/ AM on .'.''"»
ft). 25*/
or
Susan Horn
Government Documents Section
Main Library
CITY AND COUNTY
/a/ OF SAN FRANCISCO
^OARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
March 16, 1999
DOCUMENTS DEP"
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: ^Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: JVIarch 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
MAR 2
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Item 1 - File 00-0235
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting
of March 8, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Leases:
Airport
Resolution approving two new automated teller
machine leases for the new International Terminal
between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission.
New International Terminal Complex of the
Airport.
The proposed two new leases would provide space
in the new International Terminal for 20 to 22
automated teller machines (ATM), at ten different
locations. Travelex America, Inc. would install and
operate the proposed ATMs. Travelex America, Inc.
is required to install at least two ATMs at each of
the ten locations, and has the option to install a
third ATM at two of the ten locations, resulting in a
maximum of 22 ATMs. The Airport issued two
separate leases to operate ATMs in order to provide
lease opportunities to as many companies as
possible, however, Travelex America, Inc. was the
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Lessor:
Lessee:
only company to submit bids for the two subject
leases (See below "Description" section).
City and County of San Francisco, acting by and
through its Airport Commission.
Travelex America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by Travelex America, Inc.
to the Airport:
Annual Rental
Revenues Payable by
Travelex America, Inc.
to the Airport:
$20,125 monthly for each lease, for a total of
$40,250 per month for both leases ($241,500
annually per lease, or $483,000 annually for both
leases.)
Beginning from the first year of the lease, and
through the duration of the five-year lease period,
the base annual rent payable by Travelex America,
Inc. to the Airport includes the Minimum Annual
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, for a total of
$483,000 per year, subject to Consumer Price Index
(CPI) annual adjustments. The $483,000 total
Minimum Annual Guarantee for both leases
applies to the ten proposed ATM locations,
regardless of whether Travelex installs 20 or 22
ATMs. In addition to the Minimum Annual
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, Travelex
America, Inc. would pay to the Airport Percentage
Rent and Transaction Rent, defined as follows:
"Percentage Rent" means rent paid in addition to
and without set off against the [Minimum
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to
thirty-three percent (33%) of any Transaction
Surcharge and/or changes for Optional Uses
[defined as shown in Attachment I to this report]
approved by Director and charged to ATM
Customers who use the ATMs on the Premises.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
"Transaction Rent" means rent paid in addition
to and without set off against the [Minimum
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to ten
cents ($0.10) for each Customer Use of Tenant's
ATM on the Premises except that Transaction
Rent shall not be payable with respect to 1) ATM
Customer Use as to which Percentage Rent is
payable, and 2) ATM Customer Use for which no
transaction is completed due to reject of a
customer's card or aborting by the customer of
the ATM Customer Use prior to concluding any
transaction.
According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the
Airport has not projected future revenues to be paid
by Travelex to the Airport, in addition to the
Minimum Annual Guarantee of $241,500 for each
lease, based on anticipated Percentage and
Transaction Rent payments. Mr. Rhoades advises
that estimating demand for the new ATMs and
related surcharge revenues is difficult since the
ATMs will be located in a new building, for which
there is no historical data for making such
forecasts.
However, according to Mr. Rhoades, Travelex
stated in its bid to the Airport that it plans to
request permission from the Airport Director to
impose a transaction surcharge on all ATM
customers, as stated in Attachment II, provided by
the Airport. Under the terms of the lease, Travelex
may not charge a transaction surcharge of more
than $1.50 per customer use, and Travelex would
pay the Airport 33 percent of those surcharges.
Under the terms of the lease, Travelex America,
Inc. must have written approval from the Airport
Director to impose a transaction surcharge, as
stated in the lease as follows:
Tenant shall not charge Transaction
Surcharges except as approved by Director
[emphasis added]. The Maximum amount of any
such Transaction Surcharge that may be
approved shall be S1.50 per Customer Use. The
amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
a clear description of the customers to which it
applies must be posted in a clearly visible
manner on the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated
clearly through the ATMs electronic display
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue
the transaction with a Transaction Surcharge
before the Customer Use is
completed... Transaction Surcharges shall be
subject to Percentage Rent as described in the
lease.
Attachment II also contains: (a) the companies that
currently hold leases with the Airport for ATMs in
the Airport, (b) the annual Minimum Annual
Guarantees paid by each of these companies to the
Airport for the ATMs, and (c) the total combined
surcharge revenues of $315,192 paid to the Airport
by these companies for the ATM leases during
1999.
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Utilities and Janitorial
Provided by Lessor:
Description:
The two proposed leases would commence on
September 26, 2000. Each lease would be for a five
year period, terminating on September 25, 2005.
The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two
one-year extensions for each lease.
The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and
janitorial services.
On August 17, 1999, the Airport Commission
requested bids for two Automated Teller Machine
Leases for the new International Terminal
Building. Subsequently, on December 21, 1999, the
Airport Commission adopted a resolution awarding
the two leases to Travelex America. Inc.. the sole
bidder (Resolution No. 99-0458). According to Mr.
Rhoades, the sole bidder, Travelex America, Inc.,
submitted a Minimum Annual Guarantee bid of
$241,500. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport
issued Invitations to Bid for the two ATM leases to
141 firms. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport
decided to issue two separate leases, to operate 10
to 11 ATMs each, in order to provide lease
opportunities to as many companies as possible.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
4
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Tenant
Improvements:
Attachment II also explains why the Airport
received only one bid to operate the ATMs at the
Airport.
Under the two proposed leases, Travelex America,
Inc. would install and operate 20 to 22 ATMs, at
ten different locations throughout the new
International Terminal. The ATMs would operate
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Lessee would be required, at its sole cost, to
design and construct the ATM enclosures, including
all fixtures, furnishings and equipment necessary
to Travelex America Inc.'s operations under the
subject lease. Travelex America, Inc.'s costs for
these improvements shall not be less than $5,000
per ATM, or $100,000 to $110,000 for aU 20 to 22
ATMs. This minimum of $5,000 does not include
the cost of purchasing and installing the ATMs
themselves. According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport
requires a minimum of $5,000 in improvements per
ATM to ensure that Travelex America, Inc.
constructs ATM enclosures consistent with the
design, materials and quality of the new
International Terminal.
Comments:
1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 20 to 22 ATMs
in the new International Terminal will be
completed by August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises
that the Airport's new International Terminal is
now scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or
three months later than the previously estimated
opening date of June 26, 2000, in order to allow the
Airport time to test the new facilities.
2. Item 5, File 00-0236 of this report to the Finance
and Labor Committee, pertains to another proposed
Airport lease to Travelex America, Inc. to provide
Foreign Currency Exchange facilities at various
locations in the Airport.
3. In November of 1999, the voters of San Francisco
approved Proposition F to prohibit banks and other
financial institutions from charging a fee to persons
who do not have an account with that bank or
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
5
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
financial institution, for use of that bank or
financial institution's automated teller machines in
San Francisco. These fees are often in addition to
fees charged to the customer by the customer's own
bank. In response to passage of Proposition F, Bank
of America, Wells Fargo and the California
Bankers' Association sued the City, arguing that
the City had no authority to restrict the fees that
banks charge customers. In November of 1999, a
U.S. District Court Judge granted a preliminary
injunction preventing the City from enacting
Proposition F. According to Mr. Marc Slavin of the
City Attorney's Office, the City is currently
appealing that injunction. Mr. Slavin advises that
the City Attorney's Office has not yet formally
determined whether Proposition Fs restriction on
surcharge fees would apply to ATMs at the Airport.
4. Mr. Slavin advises that the City Attorney's Office
has not yet formally determined whether Travelex
America, Inc. fits the definition of "bank or
financial institution,'' as defined in Proposition F.
However, if the City Attorney's Office determines
that Travelex America, Inc. does fall within the
purview of Proposition F and that Proposition F
applies to ATMs at the Airport, and if Proposition F
is upheld in the courts, then Travelex America, Inc.
would be prohibited from charging the proposed
surcharge of up to $1.50.
As previously reported, the Airport has not
estimated the amount of revenues that would be
generated by such proposed surcharges. However,
in accordance with the proposed lease provisions,
the Airport would' receive 33 percent of these
surcharge revenues from Travelex America, Inc.
5. The Budget Analyst notes that under the
proposed leases, the Airport Director would have
the authority to approve such transaction
surcharges of up to SI. 50 per customer use. Given
the recent approval of Proposition F by the San
Francisco voters, the current legal status of this
issue, and the potential for Travelex America, Inc.
to be affected by this Proposition, the Budget
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
6
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Analyst considers approval of the proposed
resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
7
Attach ment: I
Page 1 ot 3
EXHIBIT B
USE AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS : Ail ATM Services shall be provided on a non-
exclusive basis, and Airport reserves the right to sell and to permit other Airport tenants to
provide such services. Tenant may not offer any services not described below as being
"Required" or '"Optional", without Director's prior consent.
2. REQUIRED/OPTIONAL SERVICES : In the event Director permits any service to be
sold or offered that is not listed beiow. or otherwise permits any other change in the
Permitted Use. this Exhibit shall be deemed amended without need for a formal
amendment of this L_ease. Tenant shall be required to operate the Premises in accordance
wuh the requirements, and offer the service, as described below:
A. Required Uses:
Tenant shall provide the following services, on a non-exclusive basis:
1 . Dispense United States currency.
2. Provide access to network support form no less than four of the following
networks: Plus. Star. Cirrus. Global.Access and Interlink and accept no less than
four of the following credit cards: American Express. Diner's Club. MasterCai
Visa, Discover "Novus Card.
3 . Provide a written receipt of each transaction.
4. Provide display functions on user operation.
5. Display transaction fee. surcharge information.
B. Optional Uses:
Tenant may provide, on a non-exclusive basis, the following "Optional Use. as
approved in writing by the Director. .Any "Optional Use" for which Tenant receives or
charges a commission, surcharge or other fee shajl be subject to payment of
percentage rent as described in Section 4 of the Lease.
1 . Provide access to financial networks .. ather than those requ.-
under Exhibit B 2.A.2. hereto.
2. Dispense traveler's c'r -
3. Dispense United States postage s; alue.
4. Provide tickets for San Franc-.scc regional area cultural, performing an
sporting events.
5 Dispense airline tickets
Exhibit 3 - Pace I
Attachment I
Page 2 of 3
6. Display animated software graphics
7. Accept deposits to accounts.
8. Handle debit card transactions.
9. Other services consistent with the operations of ATMs that can be demons, jtea to
benefit customers and the traveling public, if and as approved bv the Airport
Director.
3. PROHIBITED USES/SERVICE
Tenant understands and agrees that the following products or services are not included
within the Permitted Use, without the prior written consent of Director, which consent mav be
granted or denied in Director's absolute and sole discretion.
1 . .Any and all sales of phone cards
2. Dispense or exchange foreign currency
3. Offer gambling of any kind
4. Display advertising, except that electronic display of Tenant's services during
"wait" times while transactions are processing shall not be deemed to be
advertising prohibited hereunder
5. Sell any type of merchandise
4. OPERATIONS
A. Hours of Operations
Each ATM shall operate twenty-four (24) hours a day. seven (7) days a week including
holidays.
B. Maintenance and Operation of Units
ATMs must be capable of handling, via telephone link, access to accounts for transactions
including withdrawals, deposits and charges against credit lines. Without limiting the
generality of Section 3.11 [Compliance with Laws]. Tenant shall cause the operation of
ATMs to be in compliance with all Governmental. Banking and FAA Regulations, including
security requirements and Airport Rules and Regulations. Tenant shall be responsible for the
secure transport of cash and receipts to and from each specific ATM location. Pursuant to
FAA Regulations, no arms are permitted beyond the security checkpoints. Airport police shall
not be responsible for escorting ATM service personnel.
The ATMs and each location will be kept in clean, dust free, neat and First-class business-like
and orderly condition at all times. The ATMs will be serviced and monitored in a manner l
ensures the continual and uninterrupted operation of each unit. The Airport Director mav
require more frequent servicing and stocking upon written notice to Tenant. Faiiure to
maintain and service units according to the aforesaid standard will result in the impositior
Exhibu E - Pace 2
Attachment I
Pape 3 of 3
progressively stnngent fines, as provided in Secuon 15.S hereto. Emergency service response
should be available within ninety (90) minutes of notice. Except for emergency resDonse,
servicing of the ATM units must be done during off-peak hours of 2:30 p.m. through 5:30
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. through 5:30 a.m. or other hours as may be designated in writing from
time to time by Director.
C. Informational Displays
Tenant shall provide and display at each ATM unit all written directions necessary to instruc:
customers in the operation of the ATM. Tenant shall aiso provide, either through the ATM's
electronic display or affixed to the ATM, information for the obtaining machine services
and/or refunds. Tenant shall not place or install any racks, stands or other displav on any
Airport property outside the Premises.
D. Transaction Surcharges
Tenant shall not charge Transaction Surcharges except as approved in writing by Director.
The Maximum amount of any such Transaction Surcharge that may be approved shall be
SI .50 per Customer Use. The amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and a clear
description of the customers to which it applies must be posted in a clearly visible manner on
the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated clearly through the ATM's electronic display
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue the transaction with a Transaction
Surcharge before the Customer Use is completed. Any Transaction Surcharges charged bv
Tenant must be consistent throughout the Airport and cannot exceed charges at other locations
in Tenant's system. Transaction Surcharges shall be subject to Percentage Rent as described
in the Lease.
E. Management
Tenant shall select and appoint a full-time experienced manager fully authorized to represerv.
and act on behalf of Tenant providing an emergency contact number on a twenty-four
hour basis.
Tenant shall not staff the ATM locations, conduct other business, provide other services or
sell any type of merchandise No brochures or advertising will be displayed without prior
written approval from the Airport Director
The provisions set fourth in this Exhibit B snail be in addition to and not in iimitanon :
other provisions in the Lease.
B - Pa-.-;
Attachment II
Pase 1 of 2
AIRPOUT
COMMISSION
CITY AND COUNTY
OF 5AN FRANCISCO
WILLIE L. BROWN. JO
AUTO*
HENRY E.3ERMAN
LARRY MAJZOLA
I//C£ PnSSlOCNT
MICHAEL S. STAUNSlCY
LINOA S. CBAYTON
JOHN L.MARTIN
HMrOKT SIHICTOH
San Francisco International Airport
P.O. Box 8097
San Francisco. CA Mi:
Te! 6S0. 794. 5000
rax ciU./S*. 5005
wwwilysfo.com
AIRPORT COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEMORANDUM
TOi Emiiie Neumann
Budget Analyst's Office
DATE: February 24, 2000
FROM: Jon Ballesteros
SUBJECT: File #000235 - Airport ATM Services Lease
Below please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution
befqre the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Lease for ATM Services.
I
SURCHARGES
I
Trayelex America, Lnc. plans to charge a surcharge as permitted in Exhibit B. The amount
of the surcharge will not exceed SI. 50.
The; Airport will receive 33% of any surcharge Travelex charges.
CURRENT ATM LEASE AGREEMENTS
Bank of America currently has two Leases with ATM Machines: Lease L86-0039 has two
bank branches and eight ATM machines and a MAG of 5214,160 (plus additional surcharge
and' transaction rents) and Lease L97-0039 has six ATM rnachines and a MAG of SI 07,45 1
(plus additional surcharge and transaction rents).
Wejas Fargo Bank Lease 97-0293 has 10 ATM machines and a M\G of SI 87,472 (plus
additional surcharge and transaction rents).
The total amount of transaction fee and surcharge revenues generated by the leases in
calendar year 1999 equaled 5315,191
Attachment II
Pape l or 2
Ernilic Neumann;
February 24, 2000
Page 2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL RENTAL REVENUES
Travelex America, Inc. was the sole responsive bidder, and Travelex .America, Inc. will execute
both Leases, wita the bid amount of 5241,500 which will be the minimum annual guarantee for
each Lease for the first year. Travelex America, Inc. will pay the MAG for each Lease plus,
additional surcharge and transaction rents.
There are no estimated forecasts for revenues generated from transaction fees at this time as
these fees are based on user volume. Due to the fact that the ATM machines will be located in a
building that did'not exist previously, there is no historical data on which to make such forecasts.
BIDDING PROCESS
i
The Airport offered Invitations to Bid for the ATM services lease to 158 firms. Staff received
one bid from Travelex America, Inc. for S24 1,500.
!
Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank were invited to bid on these leases. However, both
companies citediissues with the rent structure, the SI 80,000 Minimum Bid, and the outcome of
legal activity surrounding Proposition "F\ the initiative that would prohibit ATM surcharges in
San Francisco.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 2 - File 00-0236
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting
of March 8, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Airport
Resolution approving a new foreign currency
exchange lease at the Airport between Travelex
America, Inc. and the City and County of San
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport
Commission.
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Eleven different locations at the Airport, as
identified in Attachment I, provided by the Airport.
The proposed lease would provide approximately
1,229 square feet of space to operate foreign
currency exchanges in 11 locations at the Airport,
as identified in Attachment I, provided by the
Airport.
City and County of San Francisco, acting by and
through its Airport Commission.
Lessee:
Travelex America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by Travelex America
to the Airport:
The proposed lease would include approximately a
total of 1,229 square feet to operate ten foreign
currency exchange facilities and one office for
administration, as' explained in Attachment I,
provided by the Airport. The total rental revenues
to be paid by Travelex America to the Airport
would be approximately $280 per square foot per
month, or $343,958 per month ($4,127,500
annually).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
13
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Annual Rental
Revenues Payable by
Travelex America
to the Airport:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Utilities and Janitorial
Provided by Lessor:
Description:
Beginning from the first year of the lease, and
through the duration of the five-year lease period,
the base annual rent payable by Travelex America
to the Airport will be the greater of the Minimum
Annual Guarantee (MAG) of $4,127,500, subject to
Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual adjustments,
or a passenger-based fee equal to eighty -eight cents
($0.88) multiplied by the total number of
enplanements (the total number of passengers
boarding airline carriers for international flights).
Attachment II, provided by the Airport, shows: (a)
the total estimated annual rental revenues from
the eleven foreign currency exchange locations to
be paid by Travelex America to the Airport
annually, and (b) the total estimated revenues of
$22,355,871 to be paid to the Airport over the five
year lease term. As shown in Attachment II, these
estimates are based on the Minimum Annual
Guarantee and are adjusted upward using
projected increases in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI). Attachment II also lists the two firms
currently holding leases for foreign currency-
exchange locations at the Airport and the
Minimum Annual Guarantee paid by each lessee.
The proposed lease would commence on September
26, 2000. The lease would be for a five year period,
terminating on September 25, 2005.
The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two
two-year extensions' for the lease.
The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and
janitorial services.
On September 21, 1999, the Airport Commission
requested bids for a lease to operate currency-
exchange facilities at 11 different locations in the
Airport, as identified in Attachment I.
Subsequently, on December 21. 1999 the Airport
Commission adopted a resolution awarding the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Tenant Improvements:
lease to Travelex America, Inc, the highest
responsive bidder (Resolution No. 99-0449).
According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 129 firms for
the foreign currency exchanges at 11 locations in
the Airport (See Attachment II). Attachment II also
contains a list of all firms that submitted bids for
this concession and the Minimum Annual
Guarantees of each bidder. According to Mr.
Rhoades, all firms submitting bids agreed to pay
the greater of the Minimum Annual Guarantee of
$4,127,500 or the $0.88 per passenger fee, as
outlined in the proposed lease. However these firms
were not required to include in their bids revenue
projections based on this passenger fee.
Travelex America would be required to invest a
minimum of $184,200 in improvements to the
subject lease space. This minimum investment
amount of $184,200 is based on $200 a square foot
for 921 square feet to be used for currency exchange
facilities (out of the total 1,229 square feet covered
by the subject lease). The minimum investment
does not apply to the remaining 308 square feet
designated for office space. According to Mr.
Rhoades, these improvements include constructing
the foreign currency exchange facilities, providing
trade fixtures and hanging signs. Mr. Rhoades
advises that the Airport requires a minimum of
$200 a square foot in improvements to ensure that
Travelex America constructs currency exchange
facilities consistent with the design, materials and
quality of existing Domestic Terminals and the new
International Terminal.
Comments:
1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 11 foreign
currency exchange facilities will be completed by
August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises that the
Airport's new International Terminal is now
scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or three
months later than the previously estimated
opening date of June 26, 2000, in order to allow the
Airport time to test the new facilities.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. Item No. 4, File 00-0235 of this report to the
Finance and Labor Committee, pertains to two
additional proposed Airport leases to Travelex
America to provide automated teller machines
(ATMs) in the Airport's new International
Terminal.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
EXHIBIT A
PREMISES
wmmgmi^^^
TERMINAL
New International Terminal
Pre-Security
New International Terminal
Pre-Security
New International Terminal
Pre-Security
& Office space
New International Terminal
Boarding Area A
Post-Security
LOCATION
I.3.003F- Great Hall North ticket island facing north
across from food court.
Approximately 69 square foot area.
I.3.014E- Great Hall South ticket island facing south
across from food court.
Approximately 67 square foot area.
I.3.084D- North Shoulder Building next to restrooms,
hair salon and Discretionary Store.
Approximately 150 square foot area.
I3.084.E- Office space located behind foreign currency
retail space I3.084D. Approximately 308 square foot
area.
A.3.023- Mid-Terminal next to food cluster across from
phones.
Approximately 138 square foot area.
New International Terminal
Boarding Area G
Two Locations
Post-Security
(1) G.3.004K- Next to large duty free shop and
restaurant/bar before people mover.
Approximately 2J_3 square foot area.
(2) Ojie (1) Mobile Cart Location. *
(not shown)
New International Terminal
Arrivals
Post-Secuntv
I.2.024B- Southwest lobby area, behind Lodging
Transportation and Attraction board across from
escalators to Great Hall approximately 134 square foot
area. Space for one .\utomated Foreign Currency
Exchange Machine at this location
New International Terminal
Arrivals
I.2.007C- Northwest lobby area, behind Lodging
Transportation and Attraction board across from
escalators to Great Hall approximately 150 square foot
area. Space for one Automated Foreign Currency
Exchange Machine at this location.
Domestic Terminals
Approximately Two (2) Mobile Cart Locations. *
(not shown)
( See attached drawinus )
TOTAL: 10 Locations (Approximately 921 sq. ft.) and 1 Office (Approximately
• * All mobile cart locations shall be as designated by the Airport from time to time
Exhibit A - Pai>e
Attachment II
Pape 1 ot 3
San Francisco International Airpon
iu»«nno«
CITY AND COUNTY
Of SAN fRANCISCO
WUUt I KOWX. J*.
MATO*
HINRT i liRMAN
IAAAY MAZZOLA
viCf 'flSIOtNT
michah v rrmmuv
LIMOA S. CRAVTON
LAKTL MO
JOHN L UARTIN
P.O Sox 8097
San Francisco. CA 94128
Tel 6<0 794.5000
Fix 650.794.5005
www_ftysfo.com
AIRPORT COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEMORANDUM
TO- Emibc Neumann
Budget Analyst's Office
Jon Ballesteros
DATE: February 24, 2000
FR<j)M:
SUBJECT: File #000236 - Airport Foreign Currency Exchange Lease
Bekiw please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution
before the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Foreign Currency Lease.
REVENUE ESTIMATES
The .Foreign Currency Exchange rent terms are the greater of the Minimum Annual
Guarantee or the Passenger-Based Fee. The first year MAG for Travclex America, Inc.
is $4,127,500. The Passenger-Based is equal to S0.88 multiplied by total number of
International Passengers Enplaned on International flights per year.
I Below are the projected Iniemarional Passengers Enplaned and projected annual
fees for the next five years and the total projected Passenger Based Fee
Revenue:
Year j Projected Enplaned [ X $0.88
I Passengers In Millions i Fee
Projected Annual
Passenger-Based Fees
2001 3.7 S3.256.0O0
2002 | 4.0
1 S3.520.000
2003 I 4.3
53.784,000
2004 | 4.7
S4. 136.000
2005 1 5.0
$4,400,000
TOTAL PROJECTED FEE REVENUE i SI 9.096.000
IX
Attachment II
Fage Z ot 3
Emilie Neumanr
February 24,
Page 2
20(0
Below are the projected annual MAG rents with CPI adjustments and the total Revenue from
projected MAG rents:
Year j
Adjusted
Current
MAG
Projected
CPI
Projected
Adjustment
Projected New MAG
after CPI adjustment
2001 i
$4,127,500
4.0%
$165,100
$4,292,600
2002 1
$4,292,600
4.0%
$171,704
S4.464.304
2003 I
$4,464,304
4.0%
$178,572
$4,642,876
2004 ;
$4,628,876
4.0%
$185,715
$4,828,591
TOTAL PROJECTED MAG REVENUE
$22,355,871
Due to the initial MAG offering of $4,127,500 and subsequent annual CPI adjustments
the Passenger-Based Fee is not expected to become greater than the current MAG.
CURRENT FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE LEASES
j
There are two companies that currently hold leases with the Airport for currency exchange: Bank of
America and Teletrip.
Bank of America Lease L86-0039 from 1987 is currently month to month with two foreign currency
locations in the International Terminal (one branch pre-security and a satellite office post security in
departures) and a MAG of $214,160.
Teletrip Lease L93-0060 from 1993 is currently month to month with five locations (three in the
International Teiminal, one office prc-security, one satellite in arrivals, one cart post security and
two carts locatec in the North Terminal with a current MAG of $856,622.
In 1993, Travelex partnered with Mutual of Omaha Insurance to take over management of the
Foreign Currency branches in the U.S. (The Airport foreign currency division of Mutual of
Omaha is known as "Tele-Trip"). In 1999 Travelex purchased Tele-Trip, Travelex will continue
to manage the current leases signed under Tele-Trip until the leases have expired.
It is anticipated that both leases will terminate with the closing of the existing International Terminal
on September 25, 2000.
Attachment II
Page 3 of 3
Emilie Neumann
February 24, 20QO
Page 3
BIDDING PROfCESS
The Airport offered Invitations to Bid for the currency exchange facility lease to 129 firms.
The following companies that submitted bids for this concession:
• American Express tendered a non-responsive bid of SI, 000,000.
• ICE Currency Services USA tendered a bid of 53,251,878.
• Travelex Amfcrica Inc. tendered the highest apparent responsive bid of S4, 127,500.
20
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 3 -File 00-0318
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting
of March 8, 2000.
Department: Airport
Item: Resolution approving the New International Fine Dining
Restaurant Lease between GQC Holdings, Inc., a certified
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, and the City and
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport
Commission.
Location: New International Terminal of the Airport
Purpose of Lease: The proposed lease would provide approximately 6,715
square feet of space to operate one fine dining restaurant at
one location.
Lessor: City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through
its Airport Commission.
Lessee: GQC Holdings, a California corporation
No. ofSq. Ft. and
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by GQC Holdings
to the Airport: Approximately 6,715 square feet to operate a restaurant at
one location in the Airport's New International Terminal.
The total rental revenues to be paid by GQC Holdings, Inc.
to the Airport based on the Minimum Annual Guarantee
would be approximately $1.67 per square foot per month, or
$11,192 per month ($134,300 annually). According to Mr.
Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the Minimum Annual
Guarantee of $1.67 per square foot per month is less than
the rent per square foot of other concession leases, due to
the high costs of operating a fine dining restaurant and the
large number of square feet (6,715) covered by the subject
lease.
Annual Rental Revenues
Payable by GQC Holdings
to the Airport: The proposed lease would require GQC Holdings, Inc. to
pay to the Airport the greater of a Minimum Annual
Guarantee (MAG) of $134,300 for each year of the ten year
and four month lease term, or a percentage of gross
revenues realized by GQC Holdings. According to the lease,
the annual percentage of gross revenues is 4% for the first
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Term of Lease:
$1,000,000 and 6% for all gross revenues in excess of
$1,000,000. The subject lease also provides for annual
increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee based on
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport estimates that for
the first year of the proposed lease, the percentage of gross
revenues realized by CQG Holdings, as detailed above, will
exceed the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $134,300 by
$109,700. The Airport would thus receive for the first year
of the lease an estimated percentage rent of $244,000 based
on GQC Holdings' estimated annual gross receipts of
$4,400,000.
According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport established the
amount of the Minimum Annual Guarantee and the
percent of gross revenues to be paid to the Airport for the
fine dining lease, and that all firms submitting proposals
were required to meet those conditions. Mr. Rhoades
advises that the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $134,300
and the percent gross revenues of 4% for the first
$1,000,000 and 6% for all gross revenues in excess of
$1,000,000 therefore applied to all firms that submitted
proposals to the Airport for the fine dining lease. According
to Mr. Rhoades, the firms submitting proposals were not
required to submit gross revenue projections.
The proposed lease would commence on September 26,
2000. The lease would be for a ten year, four month period,
terminating on January 25, 2011.
Right of Renewal: None
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor: The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and janitorial
Description: On September 21, 1999, the Airport Commission adopted a
resolution awarding the New International Terminal Fine
Dining Restaurant Lease to GQC Holdings, Inc. (Resolution
No. 99-0465). The fine dining lease was one of 16 leases the
Airport awarded to San Francisco and Bay Area firms to
operate food and beverage facilities in the new
International Terminal.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
22
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
According to Mr. Rhoades, in 1998 the Airport selected the
firm Pacific Gateway Partnership, through a formal
Request for Qualifications/Proposals process, to conduct an
outreach program for selecting food and beverage
operations. As outlined in Attachment I, provided by Mr.
Rhoades, Pacific Gateway Partnership sent invitations to
participate to more than 600 interested parties in February
of 1999. After a process of narrowing down the pool of
applicants, as described in Attachment I, in September of
1999, an Airport-approved committee chose 16 firms for
food and beverage leases in the new International
Terminal. According to Mr. Rhoades, each firm was
required to: (1) ^ave owned/managed food and beverage
businesses for at least 3 of the last 5 years, and (2)
guarantee annual gross revenues of at least $1,000,000.
Mr. Rhoades advises that the selection committee also
based their decision on the quality and look of each food
and beverage company, requiring detailed proposals from
applicants and making site visits to evaluate food, service,
kitchens, and general environment.
Attachment I, provided by the Airport, outlines the process
for choosing both the selection committee and the firms to
be awarded food and beverage leases. According to Mr.
Rhoades, two firms in addition to GQC Holdings submitted
full proposals for the fine dining lease, Chevy's Restaurant
and California Grill. Attachment I explains why the
committee chose GQC Holdings for the fine dining lease.
Attachment II lists the members of the selection committee.
Under the terms of the subject lease, GQC Holdings will
operate a high-quality restaurant, serving quality food and
beverages and including a full bar. According to Mr.
Rhoades, this is the first time the Airport has offered a
lease for high-end fine dining.
Tenant
Improvements: GQC Holdings would be required to invest a minimum of
$250 per square foot in improvements to the subject lease
space, or a total of $1,678,750 for the 6,715 square feet
covered by the subject lease.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
23
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comment: According to Mr. Rhoades, the restaurant will be completed
by the scheduled opening date for the Airport's new
International Terminal of September 26, 2000. Mr.
Rhoades advises that the September 26, 2000 opening date,
three months later than the previously estimated opening
date of June 26, 2000, will allow the Airport time to test the
new facilities.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2k
Attachment I
NEW INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL COMPLEX
FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATOR SELECTION PROCESS
Mid - 1 998 Airport issued RFQ/RFP to select firm to conduct outreach
program to identify food/beverage operators.
Dec, 1998 After Airport panel review, Airport Commission approved
selection of Pacific Gateway Partnership ("PGP') to conduct
outreach.
Jan. - Feb., 1999 Extensive outreach conducted by PGP, including meetings in
San Francisco and on Peninsula.
Feb. 1 999 Phase I of process involved the transmittal of over 600
questionnaires to interested parties.
March 1999 255 respondents to Phase I
Mar. - April, 1999 Airport approved selection panel (attached) screened Phase I
respondents, including site visits, and selected 110
respondents as being qualified for Phase II.
June, 1999 57 submissions were received under Phase II which were
evaluated by selection panel.
Sept. 1999 Airport Commission, based upon recommendation of
Selection Panel and Review by the Airport Director, awarded
food/beverage leases to 1 6 San Francisco and Bay Area
firms, 1 5 of which are minority or woman-owned businesses
(DBEs). The Fine Dining Lease was awarded to GQC
Holding, Inc.
GQC Holding, Inc. is a San Francisco based, minority-owned firm that has
demonstrated exceptional ability to develop and operate fine dining facilities.
Shanghai 1930 and Betelnut are two examples of the type of facilities that the firm
operates in San Francisco.
m:\rhoades\tbselecLdoc
25
, ACIFIC
GATEWAY
PARTNERSHIP
■y Portrwship
van rrcnciJCO An ecu C'-rnmusicn
Box 30V/
Selection Committee Members
Victor Escobedo has extensive experience as a restaurant manager and
owner. He recently opened Papalote Mexican Griil in San Francisco, and
his famiiy owns and operates the CeJIa's and Femando's Restaurants
throughout the Bay Area.
Michael Fang has been In the tourist photography business since 1981
with the Red & White Reet, He is owner of Crabcakes & Sweets, a small
fast-food seafood restaurant located at Pier 39.
Grant Mlckjns served as Director of the San Francisco Human Rights
Commission from 1975-88. Previousfy, he has been President of SETU,
Local 400, Deputy Director of the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council, and
President of the San Francisco Gvil Service Commission. Mr. Mickins
currently serves as an Independent consultant.
Patrick Quek is President and CEO of Hospitality Asset Advisors
International and PKF Consulting. He is a recognized authority on the
Asia/Pacific hotel market Mr. Quek is active in numerous civic and
industry committees locally and nationally.
•■;:' r ancisra CA 94123
Cleopatra Vaughns, RN, is the Chairman of the Board of the San
Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau. She is the manager of Community
ea intomcnonoi Airport Relations for Blue Shield of California. Ms. Vaughns is the National
President of the National Association of Negro Business &. Professional
Women's Clubs, Inc
Alicia Wang is first vice-Chair of the California Democratic Party, a
member of the Democratic National Committee, and a member of the
Association of State Democratic Chairs. She is a faolty member at San
Francisco City College.
Robert Wllhelm is a recently retired executive of Westin Hotels and
Resorts, whe'e he was Managing Director of the Westin St. Francis Hcte!
on Union Square. He has been Chairman of the Eoard for the San
Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau and Director of the San Francisco
Chamber of Commerce. He currently works with Lombard Holdings, Inc.
John Yee is Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the San
Francisco Giants. He played an integral roie in structuring the private
financing for the new Pacific Beil Park. Previously, Mr. Yee served as Vice
President or" Finance and Administration for the San Francisco Convention
& Visitors Bureau.
M«phore [650] 79d-45i7
zcurr.ile [650| t-c-_:
26
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Items 4 and 5 - Files 00-0379 and 00-0380
Department:
Item:
Department of Human Resources (HRD)
Superior Court
Ordinances (a) implementing the provisions of the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Superior
Court and the Municipal Executives Association (File 00-
0379) and (b) setting the rates of compensation and other
economic benefits for certain management classifications of
persons employed by the Superior (File 00-0380).
Description:
File 00-0379 The proposed ordinance would implement the
provisions of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the San Francisco Superior Court and the
Municipal Executives Association (MEA) for a 24-month
period, from October 1, 1999 through September 20, 2001.
As such, the proposed ordinance should be amended to
provide for retroactivity.
The subject MOU covers 14 classifications, representing 51
positions, as follows:
Current No. of
Classifications Positions
0555 Chief Executive Officer 1
0584 Assistant Executive Officer 1
0585 Manager, Budget & Administration 1
0588 Court Coordinator 19
0590 Senior Court Assistant 3
0620 Court Commissioner 11
0622 Deputy Jury Commissioner 1
0634 Manager, Court Operations 3
0636 Division Chief 6
0640 Director, Family Court Services 1
0646 Director, Probate 1
0647 Assistant Director, Probate 1
0657 Mental Health Coordinator 1
0677 Judicial Secretary Coordinator 1
Total 51
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
The new fiscal provisions of the proposed MOU are
summarized as follows:
Wage Increases
The above classifications, except 0620 Court Commissioner,
would receive a 3.75 percent salary increase, retroactive to
October 1, 1999. The parties have agreed to meet and
confer prior to October 1, 2000, to set the wage increase for
the second year of th^ MOU. The wage increase for October
1, 2000, would be subject to separate legislative approval
by the Board of Supervisors.
Pav Bonus
MEA employees, except 0620 Court Commissioner, who
were employed by the Superior Court on October 1, 1999,
would receive a one-time only bonus equal to 1 percent of
wages, exclusive of overtime, bonus or specialty pay, earned
between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 1999 for all 51 positions.
According to Ms. Cheryl Martin of the Superior Court, the
Superior Court has proposed the implementation of a pay-
for-performance program but has not yet formulated a plan
for such a program. Therefore. Ms. Martin states that the
proposed 1 percent bonus is in lieu of a pay-for-performance
program. Ms. Martin states that in the prior MOU, a
similar provision provided a one-time bonus in FY 1998-
1999 of 1.5 percent.
The proposed 1 percent bonus differs from the City's pay-
for-performance program for management classifications, in
that the City s pay-for-performance program provides
bonuses which range from negative one percent (which
would adjust the subsequent year's wage increase
downward) to 3 percent to selected covered employees,
based on the employee's performance rating; whereas the
Superior Court's proposed 1 percent bonus would be paid to
all covered employees, regardless of performance.
Health Care Benefits
For the period from October 1. 1999 through September 30,
2001. the Superior Court would contribute the greater of
either (a) $245 per month or (b) the monthly rate paid for
an employee who selects Kaiser coverage at the rate of the
employee plus two dependents, toward the employee's
participation in the Management Compensation Package.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
The Management Compensation Package includes
dependent health care insurance, disability insurance, term
life insurance and accident insurance. The proposed
contribution is an increase of $20 per month per employee
from the former contribution of $225 per month.
Retirement Contribution
For the period from October 1, 1999 through September 30,
2001, the Superior Court would continue to pay the
employees' share of retirement contributions to the
Employees Retirement System (ERS) in the following
percentages:
8 percent of salary for ERS Tier 1 members (employees
hired prior to November of 1976, and
7.5 percent of salary for ERS Tier II members
(employees hired after November of 1976).
These contribution rates paid by the City are the same
contribution rates paid in the prior MOU and any cost
increases only result from the increased salary rates
included in the MOU.
File 00-0380 The proposed ordinance would set the rates
of compensation and other economic benefits for certain
unrepresented management classifications in the San
Francisco Superior Court. According to Ms. Martin, the
Superior Court provides to the unrepresented managers
equivalent increases in salaries and benefits as received by
those managers covered by the MOU with the MEA (File
00-0379). The subject ordinance is for the following 16
classifications, covering 26 positions.
Current No.
Classifications of Positions
0210 Clerk Administrator 1
0215 Bail Commissioner 1
0220 Chief Deputy 2
0221 Executive Assistant 1
0222 Training Officer 1
0225 Calendar Coordinator 1
0230 Division Chief 3
0240 Court Program Analyst Manager 1
0242 Court Computer System Director 1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Current No.
Classifications of Positions
0255 Court Commissioner 3
0270 Assistant Division Chief 5
0271 Drug Court Coordinator 2
0275 Assistant Fiscal Officer 1
0583 Assistant Clerk of the Court 1
0595 Fiscal Systems & Services Coordinator 1
0650 Traffic Hearing Officer 1
Total 26
The major fiscal provisions of the proposed ordinance would
apply to all employee classifications, except classes 215 Bail
Commissioner and 255 Court Commissioner. The subject
classifications would receive the same 3.75 percent wage
increase effective October 1, 1999, 1 percent pay bonus,
health care benefits, and retirement contributions as the
management employees covered by the proposed MOU with
the MEA (File 00-0379). Any pay increase on October 1,
2000 would be subject to separate Board of Supervisors
approval. Additionally, employees in the above
classifications, except classes 215 Bail Commissioner and
255 Court Commissioner, who have completed five years of
experience at the maximum salary rate for their
classifications, will be credited with one additional floating
holiday, from four to five floating holidays, to be used under
the same restrictions as other floating holidays 1 , consistent
with other City Departments.
Comments: 1. The Controller estimates that the proposed MOU with
the MEA (File 00-0379) and the proposed rates for
unrepresented managers (File 00-0380) will result in
estimated incremental costs of $195,000 in FY 1999-2000
and $48,000 for the first three months of FY 2000-2001.
The Controller's Office advises that, of these incremental
costs, $186,600 would be State costs and $8,400 would be
General Fund costs in FY 1999-2000 and $45,900 would be
State costs and $2,100 would be General Fund costs in FY
2000-2001. The Budget Analyst concurs with these cost
estimates. A copy of the Controller's cost estimate is
attached to this report.
1 Currently, both unrepresented managers and managers covered by the MOU with MEA receive
four floating holidays each year. These floating holidays must be used prior to the end of each fiscal
year and cannot be carried over to the next fiscal year.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. California Government Code Section 69900 requires that
the salary rates for Court employees be set by joint action
of the Judges of the Court and the Board of Supervisors.
According to Ms. Martin, the Judges have approved the
proposed MOU with the MEA (File 00-0379) and the
proposed salary rate increases and other economic benefits
for the unrepresented management classifications (File 00-
0380). The propose subject MOU with the MEA and the
proposed ordinance setting economic benefits for
unrepresented management classifications are subject to
Board of Supervisors approval.
3. The proposed ordinances (Files 00-0379 and 00-0380)
would be effective on October 1, 1999. Therefore, the
proposed ordinances should be amended to provide for
salary rate increases, retroactive to October 1, 1999.
4. Ms. Martin states that classifications 0620 Superior
Court Commissioner, 0215 Bail Commissinner, and 0255
Municipal Court Commissioner would not receive a wage
increase under the proposed ordinances. These positions,
which are tied to those of the Superior Court Judges,
received a salary increase, effective July 1, 1999, at the
time that the Superior Court Judges received a salary
increase. The resulting salary increase for these
classifications was 2.5 percent for FY 1999-2000, according
to Ms. Martin.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinances to provide for
retroactivity, as noted in Comment No. 3.
2. Approval of the proposed ordinances, as amended, is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Uar-16-00 02:54pn Fror-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE
\l\ CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
OFFICE OF THE CONTROLI
Edward Rarrii
ConD
March 16, 2000
Ms. Gloria L. Young. Clerk of the Board
Board of Supen isors
Cicy Hall, Room 244
1 Dr. Carkon B. Goodlen Place"
San Francisco, (.'A 94 1 02
RE: Ordinances establishing compensation for Trial Court employees
FileNos. 00-0379. and 00-380
Dear Ms. Youn;:.:
In accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am submitting a cost analysis of ordinances fixing compensation for
certain classifk uions of Tnal Court employees. The ordinances cover the period October 1, 1999
through September 30, 2001, and affea approximately 77 permanent employees.
The ordinances will result in incremental costs of approximately 5195,000 in FY 1999-2000, and S4S,000
in FY 2000-2001 for the first three months of the fiscal year only. The ordinances contain a provision for
a wage re-opcm:r in FY 2000-2001 , therefore the full cost of wage increases for the fiscal years covered by
the period from October 1, 2000 through September 30. 2001 is not known at this time.
The majority oi: the cost of salaries and benefits for the employees covered under these ordinances arc
budgeted throu:;h the Tnal Courts Agency Fund and paid for by the State of California. However, of the
above amounts, approximately SS.400 in FY 1999-2000 and S2.100 in FY 2000-2001 arc budgeted
through the cit\'s General Fund. Sufficient funds for this purpose have already been appropriated to the
Trial Courts' General Fund budget for FY 1999-2000. If you have any additional questions or concerns
please contact me at 554-7500 or Peg Stevenson of my staff at 554-7522.
Sincerely,
toward M. Ha"rington
Ec
Controller
.Alice Yillagomez, ERD
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst
415-SS4-7S00
City Hail • 1 Dr. Cirlloo B. G-oodlen Place • {Loom 316 • Sin Fnuui>cn CA 'M103-16X
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 6 - File 00-0381
Department:
Item:
Description:
Comments:
Department of Human Resources (HRD)
Superior Court
Ordinance setting the rate of compensation for Superior
Court classification 0256 Pro Tern Commissioner, employed
on an "as needed" basis by the Superior Court.
The proposed ordinance would set the level of compensation
for one classification, the 0256 Pro Tern Commissioner,
effective retroactively to November 16, 1999. The proposed
salary rate increase would be in effect from November 16,
1999, through June 30, 2001. Incumbents in this
classification are employed on a daily basis to provide
services in place of permanent Court Commissioners while
permanent Court Commissioners are on vacation,
unavailable because of official business, or medical
absences. The Pro Tern Commissioners are assigned to
hear moving and other traffic and parking infractions,
conduct drivers' license suspension warrant protests, and
hear small claims matters. The Superior Court uses less
than two Pro Tern Commissioners each day, or an average
of 1.5 FTE annually, to handle these matters
The proposed ordinance would increase the hourly salary
rate of the 0256 Pro Tern Commissioner from the current
rate of $26.61 per hour to the proposed rate of $31.00 per
hour, a 16.5 percent increase.
1. According to Ms. Cheryl Martin of the Superior Court,
prior to the Superior and Municipal Courts consolidation in
December of 1998, Pro Tern Commissioners were paid at
the lowest rate required by , California Government Code for
Municipal Court Commissioners. Ms. Martin states that
the pay rate for Pro Tern Commissioners in December of
1998 was $26.61 per hour. After December 31, 1998, when
consolidation of the Superior Court and the Municipal
Court became effective, the permanent full-time 0255
Municipal Court Commissioner and 0620 Superior Court
Commissioner classifications had their pay rate set equal to
one another, at 85 percent of Superior Court Judge pay. or
$46.15 per hour. According to Ms. Martin, the Superior
Court Judges determined that the Pro Tem Commissioners
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
should be paid at a lower rate of pay than the permanent
full-time Municipal Court and Superior Court
Commissioners. However, Ms. Martin states that because
the Pro Tem Commissioners were not a separate
classification at that time, a separate, lower pay rate could
not be established. Therefore, the Pro Tem Commissioners
received the prevailing rate of pay for the permanent full
time Commissioners of $46.15 per hour, pending the
classification of a Pro Tem Commissioner position. On July
12, 1999, the Pro Tem Commissioners were moved into a
new classification, 0256 Pro Tem Commissioner, and the
salary rate was set at $26.61 per hour, the hourly salary
rate which had been in effect previously on December 31,
1998.
2. Ms. Martin states that on November 16, 1999, the
Superior Court Judges approved an increase in the hourly
rate of pay for 0256 Pro Tem Commissioners to $31.00 per
hour, a 16.5 percent increase over the prior rate of $26.61
per hour. According to Ms. Martin, the proposed $31.00 per
hour salary rate is based on an internal rate comparison
with Superior Court Clerk and Attorney positions. Ms.
Martin states that Pro Tem Commissioners are attorneys,
and fulfill the same functions as permanent full-time
Commissioners on an as-needed basis.
3. Ms Martin states that the proposed salary rate increase
would be retroactive to November 16, 1999 and as such the
proposed ordinance provides for ratification of actions
previously taken. According to Ms. Martin, the proposed
salary rate increase has not been implemented, pending
Board of Supervisors' approval.
4. The Controller estimates .that the proposed hourly salary
rate increase from $26.61 to $31.00 will result in estimated
incremental costs of $7,900 in FY 1999-2000 and $15,700 in
FY 2000-2001. The Controller's Office advises that these
incremental costs would be funded by the State and
therefore, are not paid from the General Fund. The Budget
Analyst concurs with the Controller's costs estimates. A
copy of the Controller's cost estimate is attached to this
report.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.,
/A
Harvey M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Erin McGrath
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Mar-16-00 02:54pm From-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE Attachment
* isi CITY A ND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF TH E CONTROLLE
Edward Harriugt
Control]
March 16, 2000
Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board
Board of Supervisors
City Hall, Room 244
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodletr Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
]'•'£.: Ordinances establishing compensanon for Trial Court employees
File No. 00-0381
Dear Ms. Youn;;;:
In accordance v<ith Ordinance 92-94, I am submitring a cost analysis of an ordinance fixing compensation
for Trial Court employees in class 0256 Pro Tern Commissioner. The ordinance covers the period October
1, 1999 through June 30, 2001, and affects employees used on an "as-nccded" basis, approximately 1.5
full time equivalent positions per year.
The ordinance vill result in incremental costs of approximately S7.900 in FY 1999-2000, and 515,700 in
FY 2000-2001. The cost of salaries and benefits for the employees covered under this ordinance is
budgeted through the Trial Courts Agency Fund and paid for by the State of California. There is no cost to
the city's General Fund under this ordinance. If you have any additional quesuons or concerns please
contact me at 5: : 4-7500 or Peg Stevenson of my staff at 554-7522.
Sincerely,
ir
ward M. Hatnngton
Controller
cc: Alice Villagomez, ERD
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst
415-554.7500 City Hall • I Dr. Orlton B Goodltll P1»« • Rwim 316 • S«n froncltto CA 94102-4694 f AX 41; 5r4-7J
lo.zw
City and County otSan Francisco GOVERNMENT DOC SECTION
Meeting Minutes Main Library
Finance and Labor Committee
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom An
<t
Clerk: Mary Red
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
10:00 AM
Regular Meeting
City Hall, Room 263
Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano.
Members Absent: Sue Bierman.
Meeting Convened
The meeting convened at 10:07 a.m.
REGULAR AGENDA
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
APR - 3 2030
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC L!BRAP\
000418 (Civil Service Commission Certification of Prevailing Rate of Wages]
Resolution fixing the highest general prevailing rate of wages, including wages for overtime and holiday work.
for various crafts and kinds of labor as paid for similar work in private employment in the City and County of
San Francisco at the rates certified to the Board by the Civil Service Commission on December 6, 1999. (Civil
Service Commission)
3/7/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office: Geoffrey Rothman, Department of
Human Resources.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000425 IRenewal of a 5-year term lease at 653 Chenery Street for the Glen Park Branch Library at a monthly
rent of SI, 875 for the initial term]
Resolution authorizing lease of real property at 653 Chenery Street for the Glen Park Branch Library. (Real
Estate Department)
3/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office: Tony DeLucchi, Real Estate
Department. Opposed: Anastasia Yovanopoulos. Noe Tenants Amended to make retroactive to February I.
2000.
AMENDED.
Resolution authorizing retroactive to February 1, 2000. lease of real property at 653 Chenerj Street for the
Glen Park Branch Library. (Real Estate Department)
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 4:28 PM on
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes March 2'). 211110
992295 [Municipal Railway Reduced College Student Rate|
Supervisors iNewsom, Ka(/
I Icanng to consider the feasibility of offering a reduced student rate on the Municipal Railway for enrolled
university students attending college within the < itj and I ounty <>i San Francisco.
12/13/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to I inane* and I abor Committee
I hard m Committee. Speakers Ken Brine. Budget Analyst's Office, Laura Spanjian, Municipal Railway
(MUNI): Supervisor Yee. Supervisor Ammiano. Vicky Nguyen, l niversit) n/ San Francisco, Christine Gaddi,
U.C. Berkeley. Robert Kuo, Finance, Ml XI. Holly Hogan, S /' City College, inastasia Yovanopoulos Heidi
Maehen. Supervisor Newson's Aide
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR b\ the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
SPECIAL ORDER -11:00 A.M.
000449 |San Francisco General Hospital Psychiatric Facilities)
Supervisors Newsom, I eng, Leno, tmmiano
Hearing to consider the proposal to close part of the psychiatric capacity at San Francisco General Hospital
and future plans for serving dual diagnosis patients who suffer from substance abuse and psychiatric problems.
3/13/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGN! Dtol inanoeand I ibor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Supervisor Yee. Supervisor Ammiano, Supervisor Uewsom, Supervisor Leno;
Dr Mitchell Katz, Director oj Health; Ken Bruce. Budget inatyst's Office inastasia Yovanopoulos. Fred
Hobson, l.aun Hjelm, Nurse, SFGH Department of Psychiatry, John Nick ns, PhD. Progress Foundation.
James Murray, Nurse, SFGH Department of Psychiatry, Eve Meyer, S F Suicide Prevention. Eva del Campo.
Nurse. SFGH Department oj Psvchiatn . Rev Kale Jorgensen, Jennifer Friendbach, Coalition on
Homelessness; Donna Wolfe, Psychiatric Nurse, Tenderloin Outpatient Clinic. Dr Mark Lean. Deputy- Chief.
UCSF Psychiatry at SFGH, Delphine Brody, Dr, KateBeyrer, Director. Psychiatru En rvices,
SFGH; Chance Martin. Daniel Ip Chan. Asian Mental Health Task Force Bonnie Schwartz. Program
Director, Cross Currents Team. Community Focus Program. James LaPoinl. Rebecca Hensler. HIV/AIDS
Councilor. SFGH; Khalil Hahcch. Finance Director. Department of Psychiatry, Dr Troy Kaji. St Anthony 's
Medical Director. Mily Trabmg. Director. Psvchiatn and Social Work. SFGH; Troy Williams, RN,
Psychiatric Emergency Sen ices. SFGH; Rosemary Dady. Bay Area Legal Assistance, Karen MacLeod. Jo
Ellen Rodriguez. Psychiatrist. SFGH; David Fanello. Director. Citywule Case \fanagement; Dr Steve Walsh.
Northern California Psychiatric Society. Lawrence Blow. Dr Charles Xdlela. Psychiatrist, SFGH. Kim
I'aldez. Swords to Plowshares; Olivia Flares Bevmeau. Man Kate Connor. Terry Bowman Norma Hotaling.
SAGE Project; Darren Lewis. Louis Airman; John Grimes. Assistant Director. Community Focus. Judith
Stevenson. Bakers Place; Diane Hudson; George Williams; Gordon Pooler. Pre-Locational Community
Advisory Board. Nancy Manelli, Nurse. SFGH Department of Psychiatry, Raymond Van I nit Clerk. Asian
Focus; Shanan Coughlin. Coalition to Save Public Health; Francis Lu. M D . Director. Cultural Compi I
and Diversity Program.
FILED b> the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:07 p in
City and County- of San Francisco 2 Printed at 4:28 PS1 on J/3WW
3
Susan Horn
Government Documents Section
Main Library
CITY AND COUNTY
OF §AN FRANCISCO
^OARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
March 23, 2000
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: budget Analyst
SUBJECT: .March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
DOCUMENTS DP
Item 1 - File 00-0418
Departments:
Item:
Description:
Civil Service Commission
Department of Human Resources (DHR)
MAR 2 8 2CO0
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Resolution fixing the highest general prevailing
rate of wages, including wages for overtime and
holiday work, for various crafts and kinds of labor
as paid for similar work m private employment in
the City and County of San Francisco at the rates
certified to the Board of Supervisors by the Civil
Service Commission on December 6, 1999.
Charter Section 7.204 requires that City contracts
for public works or improvements involving
construction or fabrication provide for the payment
of the highest general prevailing wage rates 1 to all
persons performing the labor under such contracts.
Section 6.37 of the City's Administrative Code
requires that the Board of Supervisors, at least
' A prevailing rate of wage is the rate of compensation being paid to a majority of workers engaged in
specified category of craft or labor.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
once during each calendar year, fix and determine
these highest general prevailing rate of wages paid
in private employment, in accordance with Charter
Section 7.204, including rates of wages for overtime
and holiday work. The proposed resolution would
establish these highest general prevailing rates of
wages which private employers are required to pay
various workers performing labor under such City
contracts. The Attachment, provided by Mr. Geoff
Rothman of the Department of Human Resources,
contains a list of all such workers.
In accordance with Section 6.37 of the City's
Administrative Code, to assist the Board of
Supervisors in determining these wage rates, the
Civil Service Commission is required to furnish to
the Board of Supervisors, on or before the first
Monday in November of each year, data as to the
highest general prevailing rates of wages as paid
by private employers to various craft and other
workers in San Francisco. Section 6.37 also states
that the Board of Supervisors is not limited to the
data submitted by the Civil Service Commission in
determining the prevailing wage rates, but may
consider other information on the subject as the
Board of Supervisors deems proper.
In March of 1989, the Board of Supervisors
amended the City's Administrative Code to include
the operation of a public off-street parking lot or
garage under the term "public work or
improvements, as defined in Section 6.37 in order
to provide prevailing wages to private Garage
Attendants in City-owned garages. In addition, in
May of 1999, the Board of Supervisors further
amended the City's Administrative Code to require
that persons performing janitorial services under
contract to the City be paid not less than the
general prevailing rate of wages in private
employment for similar work.
The Civil Service Commission has provided the
Board of Supervisors with the following data for
determining the highest general prevailing rate of
wages: (a) the General Prevailing Wage
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET 9 ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Determination Survey conducted by the Director of
Industrial Relations of the State of California for
all craft workers, except Garage Attendants and
Janitorial Service Workers, (b) the existing
agreement, in effect through November 30, 2000,
between Parking Employers and Teamsters
Automotive Employees, Local 665 for Garage
Attendants and (c) the tentative agreement
effective August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2003,
between San francisco Maintenance contractors
Association and the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), Building Service
Employees Local 87 for Janitors and Custodians.
Comments: 1. A copy of the data submitted to the Board of
Supervisors by the Civil Service Commission on
December 6. 1999, as to the highest general
prevailing rate of wages paid by private employers
to various craft workers in San Francisco is on file
with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
According to the current five-year agreement for
the period from December 1, 1995 through
November 30, 2000, the highest hourly rate for
Garage Attendants was $14.50 per hour as of
December 1, 1999. According to the tentative four-
year agreement for the period August 1, 1999
through July 31, 2003, the highest hourly rate for
Janitors and Custodians is $14.45 per hour, as of
August 1, 1999.
2. As discussed above, the Civil Service
Commission is required to furnish data to the
Board of Supervisors as to the highest general
prevailing rate of wages as paid by private
employers to various craft and other workers in
San Francisco, as identified in the Attachment.
This data is to be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors on or before the first Monday in
November of each year, or by November 1, 1999 of
this past year. However, the Budget Analyst notes
that the Civil Service Commission did not certify
and forward such data to the Board of Supervisors
until December 6, 1999. Mr. Rothman reports that
this delay was because the Civil Service
Commission was awaiting a final janitorial
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
contract, which was extended due to a threatened
strike by Janitors in the City.
3. The proposed resolution states on the first page,
on line 9, that Administrative Code Section 6.22
requires the Board of Supervisors to fix the highest
general prevailing rate of wages, including wages
paid for holiday and overtime work. However, as
discussed above, it is Administrative Code Section
6.37, not Section 6.22, which establishes this
provision. The proposed resolution should therefore
be amended to state that it is Section 6.37, rather
than Section 6.22.
4. In response to the Budget Analyst's request for
fiscal impact data of the proposed legislation, Mr.
Rothman reports that neither the Civil Service
Commission nor the Department of Human
Resources has conducted a specific fiscal analysis of
fixing the highest general prevailing rate of wages
for craft workers, Garage Attendants and Janitors.
However, Mr. Rothman advises, if the proposed
resolution is approved, it will require all
construction and maintenance contractors and
parking lot management companies that do work
for the City to pay the highest general prevailing
rate of wages for such Craft Workers, Janitors and
Garage Attendants, which may ultimately result in
higher total costs (or lower revenues from the
parking garages) to the City. The actual costs to
the City, however, will be determined by the
individual bids or proposals submitted for each
such City contract. Mr. Rothman further advises
that neither the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
nor the Department of Human Resources (DHR)
has the ability to determine such costs, since the
CSC and DHR are not involved in the awarding,
costing or tracking of such contracts.
5. Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office
reports that the Controller's Office cannot estimate
the fiscal impact of the proposed resolution because
their Office would need to do further research and
analysis of contracts to determine such impacts.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
k
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
6. The Budget Analyst advises that the proposed
rate of $14.45 per hour for private contract
Janitorial workers is between $0.65 to $3.84 per
hour less, when compared to the City's current rate
of $15.10 per hour at the first step to $18.29 per
hour at the top step for a 2708 City Custodian
position. Therefore, the Budget Analyst notes that,
even with the proposed highest general prevailing
rate of wages for private janitorial staff, it is likely
to still be less costly to continue to contract out
existing janitorial services contracts.
Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 3 above, amend
line 9 on the first page of the proposed resolution to
replace Administrative Code Section 6.22 with
Section 6.37 to reference the correct section.
2. Given that the Department of Human Resources
is not able to provide the fiscal impact of the
proposed legislation, approval of the proposed
resolution, as amended, is a policy matter for the
Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
5
Attachment
Workers covered by the Prevailing Wage Legislation
Janitors
Parking Garage Attendants
Boilermaker-Blacksmith
Iron Worker
Electrical Utility Lineman
Telephone Installation Worker
Boilermaker-Blacksmith (for storage tank
erection and repair)
Sewer Maintenance
Tree Trimmer (Line Clearance)
Stator Rewinder
Electrical Utility Lineman
Asbestos Worker, Heat and Frost Insulator
Asbestos Removal Worker (Laborer)
Building Inspector (Operating Engineer)
Boilermaker (for Pipelines)
Carpenter
Cranes, Pile Driver and Hoisting Equipment
(Operating Engineer)
Cement Mason
Dredger (Operating Engineer)
Drywall Installer (Carpenter)
Elevator Constructor
Fence Builder (Carpenter)
Fence Constructor (Laborer)
Fire Safety and Miscellaneous Sealing
Gunite Worker (Laborer)
Housemover (Laborer)
Laborer
Landfill Worker (Operating Engineer)
Landscape Irrigation Laborer
Landscape Maintenance Laborer
Landscape Operating Engineer
Light Fixture Maintenance
Light Fixture Maintenance
Operating Engineer
Parking and Highway Improvement Painter
(Laborer)
Slurry Seal Worker
Teamster
Tunnel Worker (Laborer)
Tunnel (Operating Engineer)
Carpenter
Cement Mason
Cranes, Pile Driving and Hoisting Equipment
(Operating Engineer)
Drywall Installer (Carpenter)
Laborer
C:\windows\TEMP\-ME00003.doc Page 1
Operating Engineer
Parking and Highway Improvement Painter
(Laborer)
Teamster
Tunnel (Operating Engineer)
Asbestos Worker, Heat and Frost Insulator
Asbestos Removal Worker (Laborer)
Carpenter
Cement Mason
Dredger (Operating Engineer)
Drywall Installer (Carpenter)
Elevator Constructor
Fence Constructor (Carpenter)
Laborer
Laborer Trainee (Landscape Construction)
Landscape Maintenance Laborer
Light Fixture Maintenance
Traffic Control/Lane Closure (Laborer)
Operating Engineer (Heavy and Highway
Work)
Operating Engineer (Building Construction)
Operating Engineer (Landscape
Construction)
Parking and Highway Improvement Painter
(Laborer)
Parking and Highway Improvement Painter
Pile Driver (Carpenter) Pile Driver (Operating
Engineer -Heavy and Highway Work)
Pile Driver (Operating Engineer -Building
Construction)
Slurry Seal Worker
Steel, Tank and Machinery Erection
(Operating Engineer- Heavy and Highway
Work)
Steel, Tank and Machinery Erection
(Operating Engineer- Building
Construction)
Teamster
Tunnel Worker (Laborer)
TunnelfUnderground (Operating Engineer)
03/22/00 3:29 PM
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 2 - File 00-0425
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Lessee:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Increase (Decrease)
in Cost:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Public Library
Department of Real Estate (DRE)
Resolution authorizing a renewal lease of real property
at 653 Chenery Street for the Glen Park Branch
Library.
653 Chenery Street
Space for the Glen Park Branch Library
Yalborg C. Tie;.. Trustee, Udt
Citv and Countv of San Francisco
Approximately 1.500 square feet at $1.25 per square
foot per month, for a total of $1,875 per month
($22,500 annually). Ms. Claudine Venegas of the
Department of Real Estate advises that the proposed
$1,875 rent per month is a flat rate, which will not
increase during the five year lease term or be subject
to any cost of living adjustments.
$22,500 per year, for five years.
Ms. Venegas reports that since July 1, 1993 the
monthly rent for the approximate 1,500 square feet
has remained the same, with no increases, at $1,364
per month ($0.91 per square foot per month, or
$16,368 per year). Under the proposed lease, rent
would increase by $511 per month, from the previous
rent of $1,364 to $1,875 per month ($22,500 annually),
representing a 37.5 percent increase.
Five years, commencing retroactively to February 1.
2000 and terminatine on January 31, 2005 (See
Comment No. 2).
The City would have the option to extend the lease for
one additional five-year period, at the fair market rent
to be determined by both the lessor and the City.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
7
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor:
The City would be responsible for all utility and
janitorial costs.
Description:
Tenant Improvements:
Comments:
The proposed resolution would approve a five-year
renewal lease to provide approximately 1,500 square
feet of space for the Glen Park Branch Library for a
monthly rent of $1,875 ($22,500 annually). According
to Ms. Venegas, the previous one-year option term for
the same space expired on June 30, 1994. Since then,
the City has occupied the premises on a month-to-
month hold-over basis pending the completion of
lessor-financed renovations, at an estimated cost of
$5,000, of the facility's restrooms to meet handicap
accessibility requirements. According to Ms. Venegas,
the City did not pay for any of these renovation costs.
Ms. Venegas advises that the month-to-month lease
continued for six years and that renewal of a longer-
term lease was not implemented because the Library
was investigating the possibility of expanding the Glen
Park Branch to the adjoining parcel owned by the
same lessor. According to Ms. Venegas, the Library's
expansion plans and the lessor's development plans
resulted in the delay of renovations of the existing
Glen Park Branch restrooms. Ms. Venegas reports that
the Library subsequently decided not to follow through
with its expansion plans.
None
1. According to Ms. Venegas, the proposed rent, which
will result in a 37.5 percent increase from the previous
rent, represents fair market value.
2. The proposed lease commenced on February 1. 2000
and will terminate on January 31. 2005. Therefore, the
proposed resolution should be amended to allow for
retroactive authorization.
3. According to Ms. Venegas, the lease negotiations
were completed in January of 2000, and the lessor
requested that the term commence on February 1.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2000, subject to Board of Supervisors approval. It
should also be recognized that the lessor has not raised
the rent since July 1, 1993, including the six years
since July 1, 1994 that the lease has been on a month-
to-month basis.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for
retroactive authorization, in accordance with
Comment No. 2 above.
2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
9
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 3 - File 99-2295
Department:
Item:
Public Transportation Department
Municipal Railway (Muni)
Hearing to consider the feasibility of offering a reduced
student rate on the Municipal Railway for enrolled
students attending college within the City and County of
San Francisco.
Description:
On December 20, 1999 the Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution urging the Municipal Railway to investigate the
possibility of offering a reduced student rate for enrolled
students attending college within the City (Resolution No.
1174-99). The resolution noted that such a program could
be funded from the sale of discounted Muni transit passes
to college and university students. Payment to Muni for the
discounted transit passes would be from student fees
assessed by the respective college or university. The
benefits of such a program according to the resolution
would be increased public transit utilization b} r students,
thereby assisting in reducing traffic congestion and parking
problems. The resolution further directed the Muni to
report back to the Board of Supervisors with
recommendations for such a program within eight weeks.
A discounted transit pass for all students attending college
in the City would result in decreased revenue to the Muni
from students who currently pay the full price of an adult
transit pass or full fare. However, the proposed program
would also result in the purchase of such discounted passes
by all such students, at a discounted rate, through student
fee assessments, thereby resulting in increased sales and
additional revenue to the Muni. The fiscal impact of such a
program therefore will depend on the amount of the
discount and the net effect of decreased revenues from
existing student users offset by the sale of additional passes
to students that do not currently use Muni.
The Attachment to this report is a letter from Mr. Michael
Burns, General Manager of Muni, concerning the proposed
program to offer a reduced student rate.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
10
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
According to Mr. Burns, the staff of the San Francisco
Municipal Railway believe that a discount of as much as 65
percent off the cost of an adult monthly pass may be
feasible if the reduced rate passes are issued to college
students through a student fee increase. An adult monthly
pass now costs $35. A 65 percent discount for college
students would result in a discount of $22.75 meaning that
such passes would cost $12.25 per month ($35 less $22.75).
Mr. Burn's letter states that a "65 percent discount rate
appears, feasible in terms of revenue; at this discount level
it is unlikely that Muni will suffer revenue losses resulting
from this program." The Muni's analysis concludes that any
discount greater than 65 percent would require funding
from another source to offset the loss in fare revenue.
Comments: 1. The Muni estimates that between five percent and 15
percent of Muni's current farebox revenue is received from
college students who would qualify for a discounted transit
pass program, or approximately $5,000,000 to $15,000,000
per year.
2. According to the attached letter from Mr. Burns, the
Muni has discussed this potential program with San
Francisco State University (SFSU) and the University of
San Francisco (USF). However, the discount rates
suggested by the two universities (up to 90 percent) would
result in a loss of between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 per
year. As noted above, the Muni estimates that a 65 percent
discount would result in no net revenue loss for the Muni.
3. As stated in the attachment to this report, the Muni
recommends the following next steps:
• Continue working with representatives from SFSU
and USF to review the feasibility of a maximum 65
percent discount payable through student fees.
• Review program options with other interested
Universities.
• Further develop details of program administration
including costs, security, and administrative
procedures.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
• As needed, make further recommendations to, and
seek approval from, the Board of Directors of the
Municipal Transportation Agency.
4. In summary, the fiscal impact of a program to offer
discounted transit passes to students attending colleges or
universities in the City will depend on the amount of the
discount and the net effect of decreased revenues from
existing student users, who currently pay full adult fares or
purchase adult passes, offset by the sale of additional
discounted passes to students that do not currently use
Muni. The Muni estimates that a discount of 65 percent
would be revenue neutral in that the revenue decrease
resulting from the discount pass would be balanced by the
sale of additional college student passes.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
12
Attachmen t
Pa.qe 1 of 4
San Francisco Public Transportation Department
401 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 334. San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415.5544129 Fax: 415.554.4143
February 28, 2000
Gloria Young \ '
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors >•> . '^
City and County of San Francisco -^5?r> ^"
City Hall, Room 244
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: College Student Discount Fares
Dear Ms. Young:
This report presents the preliminary recommendations of the San Francisco Municipal
Railway staff regarding a discount fare for students enrolled at colleges or Universities
within the City and County of San Francisco.
Based on information available at this time, the staff of the San Francisco Municipal
Railway believe that a discount, possibly as great as 65 percent off the cost of an adult
monthly pass, may be feasible if the reduced rate passes are issued to the entire student
body through a student fee increase. Any discount greater than 65 percent would require
funding from another source to offset the loss in fare revenue.
Muni's staff is committed to creating a consistent and financially feasible program that
can be offered to all interested colleges in San Francisco, rather than multiple programs
using different rates for different schools. With over 130,000 students enrolled at more
than seven colleges and Universities in San Francisco, a student discount could have a
significant impact on Muni's finances. Initial discussions have occurred with San
Francisco State University and the University of San Francisco: creating a sustainable
and feasible program will require careful program development with these and other
interested colleges and universities.
Current Muni Finances and Fare Policy
The review by Muni staff of a discounted student fare program was conducted in the
context of the Department's current financial situation and existing fare policies.
• Current Operating Budget Constraints. Potential changes to fare revenues must be
carefully evaluated for their impact on the Department's overall budget. The San
Francisco Municipal Railway derives approximately 1/3 of its operating budget from
13
Attachment
rage 2 of 4
fare revenues. Muni must therefore ensure that fare policies do not cause a reduction
in revenues.
Proposition E Financial Incentives. Proposition E, which was adopted by the voters
in November 1999, creates strong incentives for the Municipal Transportation
Agency (MTA) to develop non-general fund revenues. In this context, Muni staff
favor a program that would issue student discount passes through a fee paid by all
students. This could provide a predictable, stable source of funding while offering
students a substantial discount.
Existing Fare Policy. Muni currently has a wide variety of fare rates and
mechanisms. Any new fare device needs to be consistent with the current structure
while having reasonable administrative procedures. A 65 percent discount with
passes administered in part by the involved colleges offers a relatively simple fare
structure in which the administrative burden is partly shared. Muni staff is aware that
the new Board of Directors of the MTA will need to approve any proposed fare
changes in order to make the changes effective.
Other Bay Area "Class Pass" Programs
Staff at Muni have drawn from information available from other system's experiences
with student discount programs, especially AC Transit's program with UC Berkeley. The
most relevant lessons are that having a student fee-based mechanism may take time to
achieve but ultimately offers a stable program benefiting the community. However, it is
difficult to estimate the revenue impacts for this type of program.
AC Transit has created a "Class Pass" program with the University of California at
Berkeley. Similar to what Muni is considering, the AC Transit passes are issued each
semester and paid out of student fees. AC Transit's main goal was to increase ridership
rather than revenue. Passes cost $20 for a 9-month school year. At this stage, AC Transit
does not have data to indicate whether the program is increasing or decreasing their
revenues.
The Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) has a similar student program with the
California State University at San Jose. The VTA program costs students $35 for a 9-
month pass, but the University pays a subsidy to VTA to defray the difference between
the regular adult rate and the student rate.
It should be noted that both AC Transit and VTA have introduced these programs in an
effort to fill empty seats on service already being provided. Most Muni service is at or
near capacity already and ridership increases yield demands for increased service and
increased subsidy.
14
Attachment
fage 3 of A
Proposals from the Colleges
Municipal Railway staff have met with representatives from San Francisco State
University (SFSU) and from the University of San Francisco (USF) regarding student
discount programs. Other colleges in the City & County of San Francisco have not
contacted Muni regarding discounted student fares. Further information about SFSU and
USF follows.
• San Francisco State University. SFSU favors a pass available to all students, staff,
and faculty at a cost of approximately $20/semester (an 87 percent discount from the
adult monthly pass), payable as part of student fees. Students would need to vote on
and approve any fee increase; this process could take up to 18 months. According to
a 1998 survey conducted by the University, approximately 64 percent of SFSU's
25,000 enrolled students ride the Muni as their primary transport to and from school.
The survey did not identify other important information such as the number of trips
taken per week or average fare paid.
• University of San Francisco. USF favors a program initially offered only to
undergraduates, with passes costing $30/year (approximately a 90 percent discount
from the adult monthly pass), payable through student fees. Students would need to
vote on and approve this fee increase; USF estimates this process could take 6-9
months. USF has approximately 3,700 undergraduate students and 4,000 graduate
students. According to a 1999 survey provided by the University, between 39 percent
and 68 percent of students ride the Muni to and from school. As with SFSU,
important ridership information was not available from the survey.
Revenue Impacts of a "Class Pass" Program
Although Muni recommends pursuing a student fee-based student discount program, the
discount levels requested by SFSU and USF do not appear to be financially feasible at
this time. Rather, Muni staff recommends a maximum 65 percent discount from the
current adult monthly pass rate.
Results of the financial analysis are provided below, based on available information
about student enrollment, ridership, and average fares paid.
• Current Student Impact on Muni Revenues: Students represent between 5 percent and
15 percent of Muni farebox revenue, generating approximately $5-15 million per year
in fare revenue.
• Discounts Proposed by SFSU and USF: Discount levels proposed by SFSU and USF
could reduce Muni revenue by $1-10 million per year, if the discount were applied to
seven major colleges within San Francisco. If an 87-90 percent discount were offered
only to SFSU and USF, the revenue losses could be between $900,000 and $1.8
million per year.
15
Attachment
Page 4 of 4
Financially Feasible Discount Level: A 65 percent discount appears feasible in terms
of revenue; at this discount level it is unlikely that Muni will suffer revenue losses
resulting from this program. Greater than 65 percent discounts could result in
revenue losses compared to current revenue levels, and could require additional
funding from another source to offset the loss in revenue.
Service Impacts
Muni is currently involved in a variety of service and performance initiatives, detailed in
the San Francisco Municipal Railway 2000 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). A
discounted student fare program could increase ridership, but information on the scope of
this increase is not currently available. It should be noted that despite any potential
increase in the number or frequency of trips taken by students, service changes designed
specifically for college and university locations are not anticipated beyond what is
presently included in the SRTP. However, Muni's service and performance initiatives
are continuously reviewed in the context of service and program priorities.
Next Steps
To continue developing the Class Pass program, Muni staff will:
• Continue working with representatives from SFSU and USF to review the feasibility
of a maximum 65 percent discount payable through student fees.
• Review program options with other interested Universities.
• Further develop details of program administration including costs, security, and
administrative procedures.
• As needed, make further recommendations to, and seek approval from, the Board of
Directors of the MTA.
Very truly yours.
Michael T. Bums
General Manager
cc: Supervisor Gavin Newsom
16
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 4 - File 00-0449
1. This is a hearing to consider (a) the proposal to close part of the psychiatric
capacity at San Francisco General Hospital and (b) future plans for serving dual
diagnosis patients who suffer from substance abuse and psychiatric problems.
2. The attached memorandum, provided by DPH, summarizes the proposed
reduction of acute psychiatric beds at SFGH in the FY 2000-2001 budget and
proposed alternative programs to provide mental health services to sub-acute
psychiatric patients.
3. The General Fund subsidy for the Department of Public Health (DPH) in FY
1999-2000 is $232.6 million. According to Dr. Mitchell Katz of DPH, the projected
General Fund subsidy in the FY 2000-2001 DPH budget is $252.5 million, a S19.9
million or 8.5 percent increase over FY 1999-2000. Dr. Katz states that the proposed
increase in General Fund subsidy to the DPH budget results primarily from
decreased revenue from other funding sources.
4. Currently, DPH has budgeted for 92 acute psychiatric beds at San Francisco
General Hospital (SFGH). According to Dr. Katz, in the FY 2000-2001, DPH has
proposed a budget for 71 acute psychiatric beds, a reduction of 21 beds or 22.8
percent. Dr. Katz states that DPH is proposing to reduce the number of acute
psychiatric beds to offset the loss in revenues, due to de-certification and denial of
Medi-Cal reimbursements for psychiatric patients who do not qualify for acute
psychiatric care. The reduction of 21 beds would result in a reduction of $ 3.000,000
budgeted for acute psychiatric beds.
5. Dr. Katz states that DPH expects a $2.2 million deficit in Short Doyle Medi-
Cal revenues in FY 1999-2000. Short Doyle Medi-Cal funds are Federal funds used
to reimburse mental health services provided to Medi-Cal patients. According to
Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH, in the proposed FY 2000-2001 DPH budget, DPH
projects a $2,180,000 reduction from FY 1999-2000 m Short Doyle Medi-Cal
revenues.
6. Dr. Katz states that Medi-Cal denies reimbursement for approximately 60
percent of the acute psychiatric bed days billed to Medi-Cal. According to Dr. Katz,
some patients are not discharged from the psychiatric unit, even after the staff
determines that they no longer require acute psychiatric hospitalization. Often,
such patients are difficult to place because they are homeless, have substance abuse
problems, or have no alternative placement. Medi-Cal does not reimburse SFGH for
patients occupying acute psychiatric beds if they do not have an acute psychiatric
diagnosis.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
7. According to Dr. Katz. in the FY 2000-2001 DPH budget, DPH has proposed
$900,000 for supportive housing and neurobehavioral psychiatric sub-acute beds for
the placement of physically and mentally ill patients. According to Dr. Katz, sub-
acute psychiatric patients would be placed in supportive housing or neurobehavioral
psychiatric sub-acute beds, as appropriate, rather than being maintained in SFGH
acute psychiatric beds.
8. The FY 2000-2001 DPH budget also proposes $433,000 for the funding of a
behavioral/psychiatric ward at Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) for psychiatric
patients discharged from SFGH who need this type of care.
9. Dr. Katz states that DPH also proposes to reallocate funds within the DPH
budget to develop a short-stay rehabilitation ward at LHH that will focus on
enabling residents to prepare for their return to the community. According to Dr.
Katz, this ward will decrease the length of stay for patients at LHH. Dr. Katz
states that, by enabling patients to be discharged from LHH in a shorter period of
time, an increased number of LHH beds will become available for SFGH patients
who no longer require acute hospitalization.
10. Dr. Katz reports that DPH currently has a number of programs for dually
diagnosed patients who suffer from substance abuse and psychiatric problems. The
supportive housing and neurobehavioral psychiatric subacute beds proposed in FY
2000-2001 budget will serve dually diagnosed patients. Dr. Katz states that almost
all of the mental health programs provided by DPH serve psychiatric patients with
substance abuse problems. Whether there should be a further expansion of
programs for dually diagnosed patients is a policy decision for the Mayor and the
Board of Supervisors which would require additional funding according to Dr. Katz.
11. In summary, in FY 2000-2001, DPH has proposed the following changes:
• DPH has proposed reducing the number of acute psychiatric beds at SFGH by
21, from the current number of 92 acute psychiatric beds to 71.
• DPH projects that Federal Short Doyle Medi-Cal revenues to reimburse mental
health services will be reduced by $2. 180.000 m FY' 2000-2001. Additionally.
DPH estimates that SFGH will lose approximately $2.2 in Medi-Cal
reimbursement revenues in FY 1999-2000 because Medi-Cal did not reimburse
for sub-acute psychiatric patients being maintained in acute psychiatric beds at
SFGH.
• DPH has proposed $900,000 in the FY 2000-2001 DPH budget for supportive
housing and neurobehavioral psychiatric L.ub-acute beds for physically and
mentally ill patients and $433,000 for the funding of a behavioral/psychiatric
ward at LHH. Additionally. DPH proposes to reallocate funds within the DPH
budget to develop a short-stay rehabilitation ward at LHH.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
18
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
• DPH does not currently have plans for programs specifically targeted to
psychiatric patients with substance abuse problems. However, existing DPH
mental health programs have some capacity to serve psychiatric patients with
substance abuse problems.
• DPH has a number of programs for persons with dual diagnoses. Expansion of
these programs would be a policy decision for the Mayor and the Board of
Supervisors which would require additional funding.
Harvev M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Erin McGrath
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakev
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
19
NAR-23-2B00 13=23
SF DPH CFO
City and County of San Francisco
Department of Public Health
Mitchell H. Katz, M.D.
Director of Health
March 23, 2000
Memo To:
From:
Re:
Harvev Rose
Mitchell Katz, M.D. /JTI^UjU^
Hearing by Finance and Labor Committee regarding DPH Budget
Proposal to Reduce Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Beds
Thank you for having your staff prepare a budget summary for this important issue. Here
is additional information regarding the proposal to reduce the number of inpatient
psychiatric beds at San Francisco General Hospital for FY 00-01.
The current budgeted census at SFGH Psychiatric Inpatient Services is 92. The
Department's total costs related to the inpatient psychiatric services is S24 million. The
direct costs associated with the program (including staff and physicians) is S15.2 million.
Of this cost, only $3.0 will be reimbursed by MediCal in the current year, which is $2.2
million less than budgeted even though over 57% of the patients are MediCal eligible. In
the last year, over 60% of the MediCal inpatient days could not be billed to MediCal
because the patients were no longer in need of acute care. We believe that SFGH could
improve its discharge planning. The other non-profit hospitals in San Francisco that care
for our patients have only 26% of inpatient days judged to not need acute care. Some
patients stay on the inpatient ward for long periods of time because they are homeless,
have substance abuse issues, or are difficult to place.
For FY 00-01, the Department proposes to increase community programs in order to
provide more options for patients upon discharge of acute care. As patients are
discharged or transferred to more appropriate treatment settings in the community, the
Department will reduce up to 22 inpatient beds, thereby reducing costs for expensive
hospitalization that has no reimbursement. Inpatient expenses will be reduced by
$3,000,000. Of this amount, $900,000 will be reallocated to create supportive housing
and sub-acute alternatives for the patients. In addition, the Department is increasing
board and care beds, creating a neurorologic-behavioral psychology unit at Laguna
Honda, and opening up a new acute diversion residential program in the coinmunity in
order to increase the treatment capacity for patients who no longer need acute care.
This strategy, which has been endorsed by the Health Commission, is consistent with the
Department's strategic direction of decreasing the need for acute hospitalization, which is
very costly, and increasing the use of less expensive, less restrictive community settings.
(415) 554-2600
101 Grove Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
20
MAR-23-2000 13:24 SF DPH CFO
This strategy is also consistent with the direction of health care throughout the United
States. The proposal will provide better treatment options for patients, and reduce costs
for which no reimbursement exists.
I will be available to answer any questions that you or the members of the Board of
Supervisor's Finance and Labor committee have on the DPH budget.
TOTAL P. 01
21
).s6i
'>/<?<
City and County of §an Francisco
Meeting Minutes
Finance and Labor Committee
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano
Clerk: Mary Red
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
94102^689
Wednesday,, April 05, 2000
10:00 AM
Regular Meeting
City Hall, Room 263
Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano.
Meeting Convened
The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m.
REGULAR AGENDA
DOCUMENTS DEPT
APR 1 1 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
000450 |Federal Day Care Funds]
Supervisors Yee, Ammiano, Teng
Hearing to consider the reasons why the City and County of San Francisco did not fully allocate federal child
care funds necessitating a return of more than S6 million to the federal government and to discuss changes that
should be implemented to ensure that all available child care funds - federal, state, and local - are fully
allocated to those that need and are eligible for them.
3/13/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. March 20, 2000 Supervisor Brown requested his name be
removed as co-sponsor.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Will Lightboume. Director, Department of
Human Sendees; Supervisor Yee: Supervisor Bierman; Supervisor Ammiano; Corel Reed, Director. Whitney
Young Center; Marina Gillis; Susan Lavara.
FILED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000216 [Transportation for Welfare to Work participants]
Supervisor Bierman
Hearing to determine what, if any, measures have been adopted by Muni to ensure that those participating in
the Welfare to Work programs are provided with adequate means of reaching their places of employment,
especially transportation for nighttime employees, particularly those employed at the San Francisco Airport.
1/31/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Transportation and Land Use Committee.
3/28/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee.
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at S:2i r\t M 4 h. N
Finance mid l.ubor Committet
Meeting Minutes
Ifnl 5, 2000
000315 [Cal-Works Prognmi]
Supervisor Bierman
Hearing to consider the currenl sums of the Cal-Works program, which is now in its second year.
2/14/00, RECEIVED AND \SSIGNI D to Housing and Social Policy I ommiitec SPONSOR REQUESTS THAT THIS ITEM HI
SCHEDUI I DFOR APRI1 18,2000, Ml I ITNG
3 2H (in, i kansi I kki i) in Finance and I abor Committee Sponsor requests that item be calendared April
/Irani in Committee Speakers Rebecca Vilkormerson; Homeless Prenatal P rogra m Jessica -trtiles. Irma
Sanez. Lisa Garcia, Poor Magazine, Ann Politeo, Libby Kaiser, Falechia Harris, Nancy Frappier, Susie
Mattos, Housing Specialist, Soma Bancs. Dianna Loggins, Eve Scotland, Bay Area Legal Aid, Sieve
Bingham, National Center for Youth Law Michael McCarthy, Compass Community Services, Damu Sudi Alii,
Bayview Hunters Point c hem Advot ate Projet t, Martina Gillis, Jackie Henderson. Hill Lightboume,
Director, Department oj Human Services, Supervisor Ammiano, Supervisor Bierman, Supervisoi
CONTINUED IO< Ml <>l I III < HAIR by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman. Ammiano
000424 |Kood Service - Application and Permil Fee*]
Ordinance amending Pari III of the San Francisco Municipal ( ode i Business and la\ Regulation Code) by
amending Section 24° 1 1 to re\ ise permit fees lor temporary food operations at special events; amending Pan
II of the San Francisco Municipal (Ode l I rattle (ode I by amending Section 806 to re\ ise Department of
PuMk Health permit lees for food operations at street fairs, amending I'art II of the Municipal Code (Health
Code) by amending Sections 451 and 452. to reorganize the section on applying tor permits to operate a food
establishment, modify the definition of "special events " change the deadline for applications lor temporary
food permits foi special events; and impose an extra tee for late applications for temporary permits. (Public
Health Department)
(Amends Business and Tax Regulation Code Section 24" 1 1 , amends Traffic Code Section 806; amends
Health Code Sections 451 and 452 )
0, KUI l\ I D ami ASSICNI Dtol inanceand Labor Committee
Continued to April I 'I :iitm
CONTINUED by the following \oti-:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman. Ammiano
00047° | Year 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive Application Deadlines!
Mayor
Ordinance amending Section 16.93-4 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, which establishes March 1 of
each year as the deadline for agencies who wish to participate in the Annual Joint Fundraising Drive to submit
their applications, to allow any Mayor's fund to submit b\ April 15. 2000 their application to participate in the
2000 Annual Drive.
(Amends Section 16.93-4.)
0, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to I inance and I abor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Alex Tourk. Mayor's Office. Supervisor I
Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney
RECOMMENDED b> the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at S~:2S nt on 4 n no
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 5, 2000
000466 [Proposed acquisition of 7,500 sq. ft. Palou/Phelps lots in the Bayview district for open space purposes]
Resolution authorizing the acquisition of real property located in the Bayview District identified as Assessor's
Block No. 5328, Lot Nos. 25, 28, and 29 for $1 15,500 from John L. Goodrich for open space purposes and
adopting findings pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate Department)
3/15/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi, Director of Property, Real
Estate Department.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M.
000328 [Public Financing of Election Campaigns)
Supervisor Ammiano
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for
public financing of election campaigns. (Ethics Commission)
(Fiscal impact; Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18.)
2/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Supervisor Ammiano; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ginny Vida,
Executive Director, Ethics Commission; Naomi Starkman, Ethics Commission; Claire Sylvia, Deputy City
Attorney. Paul Melbostad, Ethics Commission. In Support: Jim Knox, California Common Cause (CCC);
Rebecca Silverberg, Coalition for S. F. Neighborhoods (CSFN); Steven Currier; Marie Harrison; Bud Wilson,
Greater West Portal; Joan Girardot, President. CSFN; Bill Rangfehl. CCC; Joan Kingeiy, CCC. Amendment
of the Whole continued to April 12, 2000.
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE.
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for
public financing of election campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-10 to provide for
increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. (Ethics Commission)
(Fiscal impact; Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 1 6.549. 18;and Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550.10.)
CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:04 p.m.
City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at $:2S PM on 4 (I 00
Susan Horn
Government Documents Section
Main Library
s/oo
CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
TO: -Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 1 - File 00-0450
March 31, 2000 DOCUMENT SDEPT
APR - 3 2009
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Department: Department of Human Services (DHS)
Item: Hearing to consider the reasons why the City and County
of San Francisco did not fully allocate Federal child care
funds, necessitating a return of more than $6 million to
the Federal government and to discuss changes that
should be implemented to ensure that all available child
care funds - Federal, State and local - are fully allocated
to the residents of San Francisco that need and are
eligible for such child care funds.
Description: Mr. Trent Rhorer of the Department of Human Services
(DHS) advises that participants in the State CalWORKS
Program who are engaged in qualified work activities
(e.g., job training, employment, education) can receive
subsidized childcare benefits, ranging from $368 to $1,133
per month per child, depending on the age of the child and
the type of care provided. According to Mr. Rhorer,
CalWORKS is a Federal and State funded Program thai
is operated through the State Department of Social
Services. The following descriptive information responds
to the various questions cited in the proposed hearing
notice by the Board of Supervisors.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
FY 1998-99 allocations and expenditures: Mr. Rhorer
advises that in FY 1998-99, DHS received an original
allocation of $5.9 million from the CalWORKS Program
together with a $2 million reallocation of State funds from
FY 1997-98 for CalWORKS Stage 1 (participants
receiving cash aid) childcare subsidies, in addition to a
$2.6 million allocation of State funds for CalWORKS
Stage 2 (participants who have left CalWORKS cash aid)
childcare subsidies, for a total initial allocation of $10.5
million. In November of 1998, DHS realized that the
$10.5 million of childcare subsidy funds would not be
sufficient for the entire fiscal year and the City applied for
$13.9 million of additional Stage 1 childcare funds from a
State-wide Childcare Reserve Fund of $183 million, which
was established for those counties that had a higher
childcare utilization rate than was originally projected for
this new State Program. According to Mr. Rhorer, the
State-wide utilization rate of such childcare subsidies is
currently approximately 25 percent of those persons
eligible, but in San Francisco the childcare subsidy
utilization rate is approximately 50 percent.
Of the additional $13.9 million which the State
authorized the City and County of San Francisco to draw
funds against, the City spent approximately $7 million in
FY 1998-99, for a total of approximately $17.5 million
($10.5 million initial allocation plus $7 million additional
expenditures) in childcare subsidies in FY 1998-99. The
remaining authorization of $6.9 million ($13.9 million
authorized by the State Less $7 million expended by the
County in FY 1998-99) was rolled over for use by San
Francisco for childcare subsidies in FY 1999-2000. Ms.
Michelle Rutherford of DHS reports that San Francisco
applied for the additional $13.9 million of childcare
subsidies in FY 1998-99, because (1) DHS was not sure if
the State would allocate all of the $13.9 million in funds
requested, and (2) DHS knew that the unused funds could
be reallocated for childcare subsidies in FY 1999-2000.
Therefore. Mr. Rhorer advises that the City did not
actually return any childcare funds to the State, but
instead, reallocated the authorized but unspent $6.9
million of childcare funds for use in FY 1999-2000.
FY 1999-2000 allocations and expenditures: In FY
1999-2000. Mr. Rhorer reports that San Francisco will
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
expend a total of approximately $18.1 million of childcare
subsidies for Stage 1 participants and $8 million for Stage
2 participants for a total of approximately $26.1 million of
childcare funds, which includes the $6.9 million of
reallocated funds from FY 1998-99. This $26.1 million
allocated for child care for FY 1990-2000 represents a 49
percent increase from the $17.5 million expended for child
care in FY 1998-99.
Existing Notification of Childcare Subsidies:
According to Mr. Rhorer, the existing protocol to notify
participants of the availability of subsidized childcare
services includes: (1) a preliminary overall orientation for
each CalWORKS participant, which takes approximately
four hours, and includes a presentation by the Children's
Council representative who discusses the childcare
subsidy program and the options for types of childcare; (2)
individual casemanagers, who work with each
CalWORKS participant and provide documents, which
must be signed by each participant that includes
additional information regarding childcare needs and
subsidies, and allows up to five years of childcare
subsidies for those persons eligible; (3) notification by
mail regarding continued eligibility for childcare subsidies
for up to two years for those participants who leave
CalWORKS cash aid; and (4) a DHS contract with Parent
Voices, a non-profit organization, which provides direct
outreach and childcare subsidy information for
participants that leave the CalWORKS Program early.
Mr. Rhorer advises that San Francisco is the only County
in the State that provides this type of contractual
outreach program for CalWORKS participants. According
to Ms. Rutherford, information and notification of
childcare subsidies is currently provided by both DHS and
Parent Voices in four languages: (1) English, (2) Spanish,
(3) Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese), and (4)
Russian. In addition. Mr. Rhorer advises that individual
DHS casemanagers are available to translate information
for particular clients, when necessary.
State-wide Comparisons for San Francisco:
According to Mr. Rhorer, San Francisco has the highest
State-wide use of such childcare subsidies with
approximately 50 percent of the eligible children in
CalWORKS families currently benefiting from these Stale
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
childcare subsidies, as compared to a State-wide average
of 25 percent. Mr. Rhorer further advises that San
Francisco's childcare subsidy notification and outreach
efforts must be effective relative to what other counties in
the State are doing because San Francisco currently
receives a disproportionate share of the State's childcare
subsidy funds. According to Mr. Rhorer, although San
Francisco has approximately one percent of the State-
wide childcare caseload, San Francisco has been allocated
9.7 percent of the State-wide childcare subsidy Reserve
Funds over the past two years. Ms. Rutherford reports
that currently there are approximately 3,000 children in
San Francisco receiving CalWORKS subsidies for
childcare.
Future Opportunities: Nevertheless, Ms. Rutherford
advises that DHS is continuing to explore other ways to
improve and expand the current methods of notifying
current CalWorks participants and former recipients of
the availability of subsidized childcare services. For
example, Ms. Rutherford reports that DHS, together with
the Children's Council, is looking at other marketing
approaches, such as (1) specific targeted efforts to families
that are resistanl to using subsidies, for which Providian
Bank has offered in-kind support or (2) using videos
which could provide previous clients' testimonials and
experiences regarding childcare subsidies. Ms. Rutherford
reports that in Fiscal Year 2000-2001, DHS will continue
to insure that the State subsidized CalWORKS childcare
services are utilized and anticipates that San Francisco
will receive comparable baseline funding of $26.1 million,
as in the current year Ms. Rutherford also advises that
the State anticipates setting aside a State-wide Reserve
Fund of $150 million for those counties that need
additional childcare subsidies in FY 2000-01, from which
San Francisco could again be allocated additional
childcare funds, if required.
DHS, State and Children Council Responses: In
response to a March 13. 2000 article and March 14. 2000
editorial. Mr. Will Lightbourne, the Executive Director of
the Department of Human Services sent the attached
letter (Attachment I) on March 15, 2000 to the Editor of
the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, addressing many
of the above issues regarding childcare funding in San
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Francisco. In addition, in response to another San
Francisco Chronicle article on March 16. 2000, Ms. Blanca
Barna of the State Department of Social Services sent the
attached letter (Attachment II) on March 20, 2000 to the
San Francisco Chronicle reiterating many of these same
points. Similarly, the Children's Council of San Francisco,
that directly manages San Francisco's CalWORKS
childcare subsidies through a contract with DHS,
submitted the attached letter to the Editor of the San
Francisco Chronicle on March 17, 2000 (Attachment III).
Summary: In FY 1998-99, San Francisco received an
initial allocation of $10.5 million for CalWORKS childcare
subsidies and realizing this was not sufficient, applied for
an additional allocation of $13.9 million of such subsidies.
Of the additional $13.9 million, San Francisco spent
approximately $7 million, for a total childcare subsidy
expenditure of $17.5 million in FY 1998-99 and carried
forward the remaining unspent $6.9 million for FY 1999-
2000.
In FY 1999-2000, San Francisco is expected to spend a
total of $26.1 million, including the $6.9 million of
reallocated funds from FY' 1998-99. This $26.1 million
represents a 49 percent increase from the $17.5 million
childcare subsidy expenditure in FY 1998-99.
DHS advises that San Francisco has the highest State-
wide use of such subsidies, benefiting approximately 50
percent of the eligible children, as compared to a State-
wide average of 25 percent. San Francisco received 9.7
percent of the State-wide Reserve Funds for childcare
subsidies over the past two years, although San Francisco
accounts for only approximately one percent of the State-
wide childcare caseload.
Nevertheless, DHS is continuing to explore ways to
improve their methods of notifying current and former
CalWORKS recipients about the availability of subsidized
childcare services. Attached letters from DHS, the State
and the Children's Council reiterate these issues and
refute articles and an editorial that recently appeared in
the San Francisco Chronicle.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
Pap,e I of 2
City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Service-
March 15,2000
The Editor
San Francisco Chronicle
5 th and Mission Streets
San Francisco, California 94103
Dear Editor:
In your March 13 article and March 14 editorial on child care subsidies in San Francisco, you
erroneously suggest:
1. San Francisco "returned" $6.5 million in unused CalWORKs Stage 1 Child Care subsidies in
1998/1999.
2. San Francisco's childcare subsidy utilization rate is low.
3. San Francisco has made inadequate efforts to notify eligible participants of the availability of
childcare subsidies.
4. At least two families, mentioned in the article, somehow went unserved and unassisted.
I would like to make your readers aware of the following:
No funds for child care were returned to federal or state sources. For fiscal year 1998-99, the
State allocated San Francisco S5. ( ) million for welfare-to-work childcare subsidies. We projected
this amount would be too low, and asked for and received a set-aside of an additional SI 3.9
million from the State's SI S3 million child care reserve. The additional set-aside was available
on a multi-year rollover basis.
In fiscal year 1998-99, we expended the entire original S5.9 million allocation, and additionally
spent (and therefore drew down) about $7 million of the set-aside. The remaining S6 million
from the set-aside was re-allocated to San Francisco for use in fiscal year 1999-00.
In FY 99/00, we budgeted SI 8.1 million in childcare subsidies, and spent S8.7 million during the
first half of the current fiscal year. Our projections indicate that we will spend the entire S18.1
million by the end of the fiscal year.
San Francisco's child care utilization rate is twice that of the statewide average. You should be
aware that the State budget, based on statewide experience, assumes a 25% utilization rate. We
intend to continue to increase the utilization rate, but we are already well ahead of the state as a
whole.
San Francisco makes repeated efforts to notify recipients of their child care options. The
Chronicle report implies that the only method of notifying clients of the availability of childcare
subsidies is through the initial CalWORKs Orientation, in which childcare is just one of a
number of services, benefits and requirements discussed with participants. In fact, in addition to
Attachment I
Page 2 of 2
the Orientation, discussion of child care options and services is an integral part of the
development of the individual's employment plan, and at the time the plan is signed by the
participant, each participant signs a statement acknowledging that they have been advised of the
availability of child care subsidies.
As an additional step, San Francisco has funded Parent Voices, a local community advocacy
group, to contact those individuals we identified as working or having left aid, and who might
not have been fully briefed on child care services. Under this process we mailed informational
materials to the clients and then had Parent Voices follow-up with contacts. According to
preliminary data from a January 2000 survey of our CalWORKs caseload conducted by the Child
Care Law Center, 94 percent of respondents are aware of the availability of child care subsidies.
The Chronicle reporter was provided all of the above information.
Two cases were profiled in the Chronicle story. In one case, the person was not a CalWORKs
participant, and therefore would not in any way have been eligible for CalWORKs childcare
subsidies. In the other case the family had left aid before enrolling in CalWORKs; however, in
this case, the family had been subsequently contacted in 1999 and was made aware of the fact
that they could still be eligible for child care assistance.
I hope that the Chronicle will devote as much space to returning to our staff and partner agencies
their good names as you spent taking it away.
Sincerely,
WILL LIGHTBOURNE
Executive Director
San Francisco Department of Human Services
MAR-29-2000 10=29
DEPT OF HUMHN SUCS
Attachment II 4 i! 4 ii, 9 ^
V.W*'
Letter to the Editor
CDSS
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OE
SOCIAL SERVICES
March 20, 2000
Sar. Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103-2988
Dear Editor.
I feel compelled to set the record straight about the "misuse" of funds
referred to in Tom Zoellner's article entitled "Misuse of Day Care Funds Denied -
S- officials defend decision to send money back to government", (March 16,
2000). First, there was no "misuse" of funds; in fact, the San Francisco County
Department of Human Services should be commended for their efforts in making
available childcare subsidies to the thousands of mothers that are currently in the
CalWORKs program. Moreover, San Francisco can be proud of the fact that on
any given month, there are about 2,200 children in quality day care homes, and
centers throughout the San Francisco Bay Area while their mothers are in job
tra ning, education classes, or at their place of employment, in an effort to get off
welfare.
Secondly, absolutely no 'unspent child care funds" were returned to the
state or federal government by San Francisco county as Mr. Zoellner claims In
fact, the county spent the entire $5.9 million that was originally budgeted to them
in Fiscal Year 1998-99. As a result, they received an additional $13.9 million to
implement more childcare programs to meet the growing demand for childcare
subsidies by this population. San Francisco County spent $7 million of this
adcitional money, thus leaving $6.9 million which was reallocated to the County
this fiscal year
In closing, I encourage Mr. Zoellner to visrt some of the wonderful child
care facilities and report on how the childcare subsidy programs in San Francisco
have contributed to the successful outcomes realized by many mothers that did
not liave this option prior to the CalWORKs program.
Sincerely,
Blanca E. Barna
Deputy Director
Publ.c Affairs and Outreach
California Department of Social Services
744 P Street • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 657-2268 • Fax (916) 657-2281
TOThC P. 04
MflR-29-2000 10=29
DEPT OF HUNAN SUCS
Attachment III
Children's
Council of
San Francisco
March 17, 2000
Letters to the Editor
San Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94 1 03
To the Editor.
It is amazing that, after weeks of research, reporter Tom Zoellner managed to get the child care
story (March 13) so completely backwards.
His basic premise was that the city is doing a poor job of informing women about their subsidies,
and therefore had to return CalWorks child care money to the stale.
The opposite is the case. San Francisco is enrolling families in CalWorks child care subsidies at
a rate that is twice the state average. Because this rate is also twice what the state expected, our
state allocation of subsidy funds was dangerously low. The Department of Human Services
applied for and gained additional money to handle our rate of enrollment- including enough to
be re-allocated to the next year.
It is not surprising that the only two parents Zoellner could locate (after weeks of effort) to
illustrate his backwards version of reality do not support his story. One was never eligible for
CalWoriis, and the records show that the other was informed about the child care program. She
declined to participate for her own reasons.
Zoellner was biased in his approach to this story. Parents and others who were interviewed say
that he was not objective and would not listen to what they were telling him. More disturbing is
that the Chronicle' s Editorial Board accepted his zealotry without checking
The recent sale of the Examiner is bringing into question again the Chronicle's national
reputation as little better man a tabloid. Reporting like this doesn't help. There are many
important issues in the child care subsidy story that were entirely missed by this wrong-headed
coverage. Try again.
Sincerely,
LinneaKlee
Executive Director
Children's Council of San Francisco
Downtown Office
S7S Sutter Sucet, 2nd Floor
S»n Frmciico, CA9410J-11C J
Phone 4L5.243.070O
Fax 415.243.4414
Biywiew-Hunar't Point Office
1J19 £vuu Avenue, 2nd Floo*
Su Francos, CA 04124-l70f
Phocc 415.920.7280
Far 415-826J678
Million Dunrier 0<K«
2601 Miiiioo Street, Suitr 600
Sin FruaKs, CA WllO-JUO
Phone; 41J.920.7282
Fbe 415 .550.6839
Memo to Finance and Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 4 - File 00-0424
Department:
Item:
Description:
Department of Public Health (DPH)
Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco
Municipal Code (business and Tax Regulation Code) by
amending Section 249.11 to revise permit fees for
temporary food operations at special events; amending Part
II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Traffic Code) by
amending Section 806 to revise Department of Public
Health permit fees for food operations at street fairs;
amending Part II of the San Francisco Municipal Code
(Health Code) by amending Sections 451 and 452 to: (a)
reorganize the section on applying for permits to operate a
food establishment, (b) modify the definition of "special
events," (c) change the deadline for applications for
temporary food permits for special events, and (d) impose
an extra fee for late applications for temporary permits.
As the local health enforcement agency, the DPH has the
authority to enforce the California Uniform Retail Food
Facilities Law (CURFFL). In this role, the DPH,
Knvironmental Health Section's Special Events program
issues permits and inspects businesses that sponsor or
conduct temporary food or beverage sales or distributions.
Activities associated with this oversight role include
reviewing permit application and food preparation, issuing
required permits, conducting routine and follow up
inspections, and providing outreach to businesses to assure
compliance with CURFFL. Regulated businesses currently
pay tees to the city based upon the number of temporary
food booths per day of opera I
The current San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth
procedures to apply to the Department of Public Health for
food preparation and service establishment permits. The
Municipal Code also requires a temporary food service
permit to serve food at special events including street fairs,
and sets forth fees and deadlines for permit applications
and for the permits themselves.
The proposed amendment would, beginning FA* 2000-2001.
(1) increase DPH's filing fee for the sponsor of a "special
event" at which food will be served, including street fairs:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
(2) establishes new application and permit fees for
temporary food permits for special events based on the
classification of food being served as either "high" (prepared
on site) or "low"(pre-packaged) in potential health hazard;
(3) increase filing, application, and permit fees by 3% each
year beginning FY 2001-2002 subject to prior review by the
Controller, submission of program costs by DPH, and a
report to the Board of Supervisors that details program
costs and anticipated revenues; (4) modify the definition of
"special events 1 " to be slightly more inclusive for purposes
of temporary food permit applications; (5) impose a 50%
late charge if applications and filing fees for temporary food
permits are not received by the DPH by at least 14 days
before the event, and forecloses approval of applications if
those applications and filing fees are not received prior to
seven days before the event, and (6) reorganize the
applicable Municipal Code sections on applications for food
service permits, including temporary food permits to
accommodate the changes above.
According to DPH, the permit fees are intended to fully
recover the cost of this program. The Board of Supervisors
last increased the program fees for Special Events in July
of 1988 (file 341-88). According to Mr. James Gillen, Senior
Administrative Analyst at DPH, the revenues from Special
Event fees realized by the City have consistently been less
than the City costs incurred in connection with such events.
Attachment I, provided by DPH, contains a list of all
current fees applicable to this legislation. Including the
existing fees, the proposed fees, the amount of the proposed
fee increases, the percentage fee increases, the amount of
the current annual revenues, and the amount of the
proposed annual revenues if the proposed fee increases are
approved. As noted in Attachment I, the total increase in
1 The current Section 249.11 of the Municipal Code reads: "Special Events' means any
organized collection of food purveyors operating individually or as a group from within
temporary facilities for a maximum 25 days within a 90-day period upon private or public
property." The new ordinance would read: "Special Events' means any organized collection
of food purveyors operating individually or collaboratively out of approved temporary or
mobile food faculties at a fixed location for a period of time not to exceed 25 days in a 90-day
period in conjunction with a single, weekly, or monthly community event as defined in the
California Health and Safety Code Section 113895(b)."
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance and Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comments:
Recommendation:
ia Laour ^omiuiLietJ meeting
fee revenue would be 187 percent if this proposed ordinance
is approved.
1. Attachment II, provided by DPH, details the City's FY
2000-2001 costs for regulation of temporary food operations
at special events which are projected to be $173,185, or
$1,805 less than the projected revenues of $174,990.
According to Mr. Gillen, if revenues exceed costs, DPH will
make an adjustment to its proposed annual request for a
three percent fee increase. DPH will request an adjusted
rate of increase to ensure that program revenues closely
match program costs. Based on the data presented in
Attachments I and II, total projected FY 2000-2001
expenditures of $173,185 would exceed revenues based on
current fees by $112,198 if this proposed ordinance is not
approved ($173,185 in expenditure less $60,507 in revenue
based on current fees).
2. Attachment III. provided by DPH, contains a list of the
counties that were surveyed by DPH for their fee structures
regarding temporary food operations. According to Mr.
Gillen, these counties were surveyed to provide a basis for
comparison, and to ensure that, relative to other counties,
the fees required by the City and County of San Francisco
would not be excessive.
3. According to Mr. Gillen. annual fee increases of up to
three percent would be reviewed by the Controller, and
reported to the Board of Supervisors. As such, separate
Board of Supervisors approval of future fee increases would
not be required. If the proposed ordinance is approved, new
fee revenues would be included in DPH s FY 2000-2001
budget.
Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
Table 2. Current (99-00) and Proposed (00-01) Fee Schedule
Estimated Current Proposed Percent Proposed
Inventory Fees Fees Increase/Decrease Revenue/Year
Application Fees:
1. Event Sponsor
2. Sponsored Low
Hazard Operator
3. Sponsored High
Hazard Operator
4. Unsponsored
LowHazard
Operator
5. Unsponsored
High Hazard
Operator
Permit Fees
6. Low Hazard
Operation
7. High Hazard
Operation
Total Fee Revenue
210
369
1116
41
124
$50
No
Charge
No
Charge
S50
S50
S100
100%
S21,000/year
$20
N/A
$7,380/year
S46
N/A
$51,336/year
$20
(60%)
$820/year
$46
(8%)
$5,704/year
$25 1 st
$35 up to 2
day/
days
$10 each
$10 each
day
day
$25 1 st
$60 up to 2
day/
davs
$10 each
$20 each
day
day
$60,987
$174,990
40%
140%
187%
$14,350/year
$72,600/year
Attachment II
Table 1. Projected FY 2000-01 Special Events Program Costs
Budget Category
FTE
Annual Expense
6122 Sr. Health Inspector
0.96
75,695
6120 Health Inspector
0.31
22,720
6124 Principal Health Inspector
0.15
12,724
1426 Clerk Typist
0.25
10,727
Mandatory Fringe Benefits
30,466
Prorated operating costs
20,854
Projected Program Total Cost
5173,185
Annual Fees Collected
Expected Costs Not Recovered
Projected Fees Collected FY 00/01
Projected Over-Collection
S 60,987
5112,198
5174,990
5 1,805
Attachment III
—
a
C5
■j)
O &o
£
o
o
o
U
fcn
CZ
r~*
r-
P
J_l
,o
u
C3
on
U
j^
o
o
13
>■
O
Trl
_aj
—
o
c^
00
O
' ,
o
r—
w '
oc
>->
o
=3 00
00
O
_£;
3
.o
:5
o
=5
</-|
o
o
O
cn
m
b<5
Vt
y?
v?
fc, -* ~
O o c
- ^o o r^
^ x i^ ^
^£ ie «^ c;
— -j 5 y
c
fa
— c_
CJ
U
u
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 5 - File 00-0479
Department:
Item:
Description:
Comment:
Department of Administrative Services (DAS)
Amending Section 16.93-4 of the San Francisco Administrative
Code, which establishes March 1 of each year as the deadline
for agencies who wish to participate in the annual joint
fundraising drive to submit their applications, to allow any
such agencies to submit by April 15, 2000, their application to
participate in the 2000 Annual Drive.
Section 16.93-3 of the Administrative Code requires the
Department of Administrative Services (a) to review all
applications from charitable organizations which request to
participate in the City's Annual Joint Fundraising Drive, and
(b) to recommend to the Board of Supervisors charitable
organizations which qualify to participate in the City's Annual
Joint Fundraising Drive in accordance with criteria set forth in
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code.
The proposed amendment would amend Section 16.93-4 of the
Administrative Code, extending the deadline for this year only
from March 1, 2000 to April 15, 2000. This amendment would
allow charitable organizations that failed to meet the March 1 st
deadline an opportunity to apply to the Board of Supervisors in
a timely manner for participation in the 2000 Annual Drive.
According to Mr. Alex Tourk of the Mayor's office, the Private
Industry Council, a Long time participant in the Annual Drives,
requested an extension of the deadline because leadership
changes within their organization had rendered them unable to
he March 1 " deadline.
The Board of Supervisors approved extended deadlines such
as the deadline affected by the subject ordinance for Annual
Fundraising Drives for 1989.1995. and 1997.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
Item 6 - File 00-0466
Department:
Item:
Location:
Seller:
Size:
Purchase Price:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Recreation and Park Department (RPD)
Department of Administrative Services (DAS)
Resolution authorizing acquisition of real property located
in the Bayview District for Open Space purposes and
adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section
101.1.
Assessor's Block No. 5328 lot numbers 25, 28 and 29
Mr. John L. Goodrich
7,500 square feet
$115,500, or $15.40 per square foot
Open Space Funds approved in the FY 1996-97 budget
Approval of the subject resolution would authorize the
acquisition of the subject Property, Block 5328 lots 25, 28
and 29, from Mr. John L. Goodrich for $115,500 for Open
Space purposes. The lots are located at 1878, 1890, and
1894 Quesada Ave, respectively.
The subject Property, consisting of vacant land, is located
in the Bayview District near the intersection of Palou
Avenue and Phelps Street, between Quesada Avenue and
Newhall Street. The three lots are 2,500 square feet each,
with dimensions of 100 feet x 25 feet, and are located
above Palou Avenue. The Property slopes steeply upward
in a southerly direction toward Bridgeview Drive. The
Attachment, provided by DAS, is a map of the subject
property and surrounding area.
The Recreation and Park Commission approved this
acquisition for Open Space purposes on May 1, 1997.
Acquisition was initially included in the program
contained in the "General Manager's Report: San
Francisco Park and Open Space Program" for FY 1996-97,
adopted May 1, 1997 by the Recreation and Park
Commission. The Department of City Planning reported
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
in
Memo to Finance Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
by letter dated August 1, 1997 that the proposed
acquisition is in conformity with the General Plan and
consistent with Planning Code Section 101.1
If the subject resolution is approved, it will be the second
purchase of property in Block 5328 made by RPD. The
first consisted of a purchase of 12 lots in 1998, done as a
part of the San Francisco Park and Open Space Program.
The Board of Supervisors approved the acquisition of that
property.
Comment: 1. According to Mr. Anthony DeLucchi, Director of
Property, the Real Estate Division of DAS, his
department conducted an appraisal of the subject
property, and has concluded that the proposed purchase
price of $115,500, or approximately $15.40 per square
foot, represents the fair market value of the property. The
owner of the property has agreed to the valuation and
entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
2. According to Mr. John Panieri of DAS, in April of 1997
the Department of Public Works (DPW) conducted a site
assessment and remediation examination of the subject
property. DPW determined that no hazardous materials
were present.
3. According to Ms. Deborah Learner of the Recreation
and Park Department (RPD), if the proposed purchax i-
approved, the Property will be considered a Significant
Natural Resource Area because the Property contains
valuable habitat. including a rich native plant
community. Ms. Learner reports that the Property will
remain Open Space and that RPD improvement plans are
limited to invasive weed control and possibly some
indigenous re-vegetation on the Property, pursuant to the
Recreation and Park Commission's adopted policy to
pi'eserve and manage Significant Natural Resource Areas.
Ms. Learner reports that the maintenance expenses
associated with the subject site will be funded by annual
Open Space Fund appropriations that are allocated for
maintenance.
4. According to Ms. Alice Chong of the Assessor's Office,
the assessed valuation of the subject Property to be
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting
acquired is $1,728. Based on the 1999-2000 tax rate of
$1.13 per $100 of assessed valuation, the annual taxes to
be paid to the City on the property would be
approximately $19.50. Once the City acquires the
Property, such taxes would no longer be paid to the City.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
14
Attachment
828
PflLOU
AVE.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 7 - File 00-0328
Department:
Item:
Description:
Ethics Commission
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through
16.549-18 to provide for public financing of election
campaigns.
The proposed ordinance would provide public funds from
a newly established Election Campaign Fund to partially
defray the election campaign costs of each candidate for
the Board of Supervisors who, according to the Ethics
Commission:
Comments:
(1) is eligible to hold office as a member of the Board of
Supervisors;
(2) has received at least $5,000 in contributions of
between $10 and $100 each from at least 50 individual
(not corporate) contributors who are San Francisco
residents 1 ;
(3) is opposed by another candidate who is eligible to
receive public financing, or has received contributions
or made expenditures of at least $5,000; and
(4) agrees to:
• limit his or her personal contributions to his or her
own campaign to $10,000;
• limit his or her campaign spending per general
election to $75,000;
• participate in at least one debate with his or her
opponents; and
• prove compliance with the proposed ordinance's
requirements.
Additional public funds would be available to a candidate
who must also contest a run-off election, so long as he or
she limits his or her run-off election campaign spending to
$20,000.
1. According to Ms. Naomi Starkman of the Ethics
Commission, currently no municipalities in the United
1 While a candidate can accept contributions of up to $500 per contributor under the Campaign
Finance Reform Ordinance, only the first $100 from each contributor would count toward eligibility
for public funds under the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
States have full public financing of election campaigns,
while four States have approved, but not implemented,
full public financing programs 2 . However, a number of
United States municipalities and States, and the Federal
Government, operate partial public financing programs.
2. Attachments I and II to this report were provided by
Ms. Starkman. Attachment I explains (a) the alternative
available funding sources for the proposed public
financing program, (b) the projected costs of partial public
financing of the election campaigns which will be held in
FYs 1999-2000, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004, and (c) the
projected costs to the Ethics Commission of administering
the proposed public financing program. Attachment II
provides more detailed projections for the cost of a public
financing program under different scenarios.
3. Although the Ethics Commission proposes funding the
subject program from General Fund revenues, it has
conducted research on the following alternative methods
of funding the program: (a) a surcharge on City-imposed
business taxes, (b) a surcharge on City-imposed property
es, and (c) voluntary taxpayer contributions.
Attachment I, Part II, explains the issues associated with
these alternative funding option.-.
4. According to Ms. Julia Moll of the City Attorney's
Office, the proposed ordinance would provide authority for
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to appropriate
sufficient monies to (a) an Election Campaign Fund
iblished under the proposed ordinance to partially
defray the election campaign costs of all eligible
candidates, and to (b) the Ethics Commission for
administration costs related to the public financing
program. However, according to Ms. Moll, such
appropriations could only be required by a voter-approved
Charter amendment. M>. Moll states that this is because
only voter-approved Charter amendments, rather than
ordinances, can limit the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors and the Mayor regarding annual
appropriations. Ms. Moll states that if the Mayor and the
- The four States which have approved full pubhc financing programs are .Arizona, Maine.
Massachusetts, and Vermont.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Board of Supervisors do not appropriate sufficient funds,
the public financing program would not operate.
5. The maximum amount of public funds that a
candidate for the Board of Supervisors could receive
under the proposed public financing program would be
$45,000 per general election and $17,000 per run-off
election from the proposed Election Campaign Fund. In
FY 2000-2001, the Ethics Commission projects that the
proposed Election Campaign Fund would require a
General Fund appropriation for the November 7, 2000
general election of (a) a range between $990,000 and
$1,980,000 for the 11 Board of Supervisors districts being
contested, and (b) a range between $17,000 and $748,000
for related runoff elections, for (c) a total appropriation
ranging between $1,007,000 and $2,728,000. These
ranges assume, in terms of eligibility for partial public
financing of election campaigns, that there are between
two and four eligible candidates per district in the general
election, and either one or two eligible candidates per
district in the run-off elections. Attachment II, Tables 1
to 3, provides public financing program cost estimates for
a range of November 7, 2000 election scenarios.
6. Depending on the outcome of a lottery held during the
first meeting of the new Board of Supervisors in 2001,
either:
• the five even-numbered Board of Supervisor districts
will be contested in 2002 and every four years
subsequently, and the six odd-numbered Board of
Supervisor districts will be contested in 2004 and
every four years subsequently; or
• the six odd-numbered. Board of Supervisor districts
will be contested in 2002 and every four years
subsequently, and the five even-numbered Board of
Supervisor districts will be contested in 2004 and
every four years subsequently.
7. For a five district election, the proposed public
financing campaign would have an estimated cost range
of (a) between $450,000 and $900,000 for the general
election, and (b) between $17,000 and $340,000 for run-off
elections, for (c) a total cost range of between $467,000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
and $1,240,000 (see Attachment II, Table 4). Again, these
ranges assume, in terms of eligibility for partial public
financing of election campaigns, that there are between
two and four eligible candidates per district in the general
election, and either one or two eligible candidates per
district in the run-off elections.
8. For a six district election, the proposed public
financing campaign would have an estimated cost range
of (a) between $540,000 and $1,080,000 for the general
election, and (b) between $17,000 and $408,000 for run-off
elections, for (c) a total cost range of between $557,000
and $1,488,000 (see Attachment II, Table 5). The same
assumptions used in Comments No. 5 and 7 apply.
9. Under the proposed ordinance, the Ethics Commission
would incur additional costs to administer the public
financing program which would require it to perform a
number of additional functions:
• Adoption of regulations to implement the proposed
ordinance and specification of all forms and
statements required to be filed under the proposed
ordinance;
• Determination of the annual and supplemental
appropriation needs of (a) the Election Campaign
Fund, and (b) the Ethics Commission for
administration of the public financing program:
• Certification of candidates' eligibility to receive public
funds and. in the case of non-certification, reviewing
appeals;
• Processing of reports filed by (a) candidates who do not
ive public funds but who do receive or expend
funds over a specified threshold, and (b) committees
which make election ampaign contributions over
specified threshol
• Audits of all candidates who receive public funds
under the proposed ordinance;
• Investigation of alleged violations of the proposed
ordinance;
3 The reports required by the proposed ordinance are in addition to the campaign disclosure
requirements imposed by the California Political Reform Act and the San Francisco Campaign
Finance Reform Ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
• Imposition of administrative penalties for violators of
the proposed ordinance; and
• Reports to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors after
each election on the public financing program.
According to Ms. Starkman, the Ethics Commission would
need to employ at least two additional full-time employees
to implement and administer the above functions at a
total estimated cost of $100,000 per year (inclusive of
mandatory fringe benefits). The Ethics Commission
states that it might also need to employ a clerical
employee during the first six months of the program at a
total estimated cost of $17,000. Annual non-salary
operating costs are estimated to be an additional $20,000
per year. The total estimated cost in the first year would
therefore be approximately $137,000 (as shown in
Attachment I, Table 2).
10. According to Ms. Ginny Vida of the Ethics
Commission, the Ethics Commission has not included in
its FY 2000-2001 budget request any additional funding
for the new Ethics Commission functions related to the
proposed public financing program. Ms. Vida states that
if the proposed public financing program is approved,
then the Ethics Commission would request additional FY
2000-2001 funding through a supplemental appropriation.
11. Equipment purchased by candidates with public
funds which is worth at least $100 and has continued
useful life would become City property after the election.
Candidates who receive public funds but who withdraw or
fail to qualify for the ballot would be required to repay the
full amount of public funds received. Candidates who
have surplus public funds,, or who have received amounts
in excess of their entitlement, would be required to return
the unexpended or excess funds to the Election Campaign
Fund. Under the proposed ordinance, candidates who
were required to repay monies would not be required to
pay interest on those repayments.
12. Violators of the proposed ordinance could be subject
to administrative, civil, and criminal penalties if they (a)
willfully, knowingly, or negligently misuse public funds,
or (b) provide false or misleading information to, or
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2 5
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
conceal information from, the Ethics Commission in
relation to the subject public financing program.
Violators could be liable to pay a fine of up to $5,000 (or,
in the case of (a), three times the amount improperly
spent, whichever is greater), or could be imprisoned for up
to six months, or both.
Recommendation:
Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becernl
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Erm McGrath
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakey
Harvey M. Rose
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
cou^
Ethics Commission
City and County of San Francisco
Attachment I
Pase 1 of 5
Isabella H. Grant
Chairperson
Henri E. Norris
Vice-Chairperson
Robert D.
Dccxendorff
Commissioner
Carol M. Ktngsley
Commissioner
Paul H. Melbostad
Commissioner
Virginia E. Vida
Executive Director
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
I.
March 7, 2000
Alan Gibson
Office of the Budget Analyst
Naomi Starkman'-t_)
Deputy Executive Director
Projected Costs of the Ethics Commission's Proposal for Public Financing of
Election Campaigns
Introduction
Your office has asked the Ethics Commission to determine the costs associated with the
Commission's proposal for public financing of election campaigns. The purpose of this
memorandum is to: 1) summarize the funding alternatives associated with the public financing
program; 2) estimate the projected budget of the proposed Election Campaign Fund; and
3) estimate the costs to the Ethics Commission associated with administration of the program.
II.
Funding Sources
Although the Commission's proposal contemplates funding the public financing program through
the City's General Fund, the Commission asked its staff to research funding alternatives for the
program. The results of the staffs research are discussed in a February 16, 2000 memorandum
to the Board of Supervisors entitled, "Report on Funding Alternatives to the General Fund for a
Public Financing Program," and are summarized below.
1 . Comparative Information of other Public Finance Programs
Prior to making its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, Commission staff studied four
cities that have partial public financing of campaigns: Los Angeles, New York City, Long
Beach and Tucson. In addition, the City of Oakland recently approved a public financing
program. All five municipalities fund their public finance programs through their City's General
Fund. Based on the successful experiences of these jurisdictions, the Commission proposes to
fund San Francisco's public financing program through the City's General Fund.
Staff also reviewed the laws of several states that have enacted (but have yet to implement) full
public financing of campaigns: Arizona, Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts. The Commission
did not discuss in detail any of the alternative funding options contemplated in these jurisdictions.
Arizona funds its program through the following sources: 1) a SI 00 annual fee imposed on
registered lobbyists representing for-profit interests; 2) an additional surcharge often percent
imposed on all civil and criminal fines and penalties; 3) a five-dollar voluntary contribution
check-off on tax return forms; and 4) voluntary donations and tax credits, not to exceed S500 or
20 percent of a resident's annual state income tax liability, whichever is greater
1390 Market Street. Suite 801 • San Francisco, CA 94102-5302 .Phone (41 5) 554-9510 • Fax (415) 554-8757
E-Mail Address: cthicscommissioniSci.sf.ca.us Website http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/etti
Attachment I
., „- Pap.e 2 ot b
Alan Gibson
Office of the Budget Analyst
March 7, 2000
Page 2
Maine has a special, dedicated, non-lapsing Fund and any interest generated by the Fund is credited to the
Fund. The following sources of funding must be deposited in the Fund: 1) $2 million in revenues from
sales and use taxes and income taxes and credited to the General Fund, 2) a tax check-off program
allowing Maine residents to designate S3 be paid into the Fund, and 3) late filing penalties and penalties for
violations of the Maine Clean Elections Act. The Massachusetts Clean Election Fund receives its funding
from voluntary check-off on the state income tax forms and from appropriations by the state legislature
Funds are capped at one tenth of one percent of the state budget.
Vermont does not set aside an amount for its Campaign Finance Fund The Fund's revenue sources
include: 1) grant funds unused by publicly funded candidates, 2) penalties and fines levied for violations of
all sections of the campaign finance law; 3) 40 percent of the amounts paid as annual report fees by
domestic corporations under Vermont law and 33 percent of the amounts paid as annual report fees by
foreign corporations under Vermont law; 4) all amounts collected from the tax on lobbying expenditures
imposed under Vermont law; 5) any gifts received by the fund, 6) any amounts appropriate to the Vermont
campaign fund by act of the general assembly; and 7) all principal and interest of the Fund
Staff also reviewed the federal public finance program. Eligible presidential candidates running in the
primary election receive partial public financing and the candidates who are nominated for the general
election receive a full grant of public funds Funding for the federal program comes from the S3 check-off
that appears on federal income tax forms While disbursements from the fund arc indexed to inflation, the
$3 tax check-off is not.
2 Surcharges on Citv- Imposed Taxes
.Although the Commission did not contemplate funding the program through a surcharge, the staff discussed
this option with Chief Assistant Treasurer Jay Banfield and Controller Edward Harrington. According to
Chief Assistant Treasurer Banfield. the City collects business taxes and property taxes. Business taxes
include receipts and payroll taxes; hotel tax, parking tax, stadium operator tax, and a transient occupancv
tax. Property taxes include secured tax; unsecured tax, supplemental property transfer tax. and a utilitv
users tax.
The City could consider the possibility of a surcharge on the following business fees/taxes business
registration license fees (which produce S10 million/year), parking violation fines and parking taxes. The
City could also consider setting aside a portion of the City's property tax (which produces S600
million/year). According to Controller Harrington, the utility users tax, which is paid only bv commercial
users, \ields about S60 million per year A two percent surcharge on the utility users tax would produce
about $12 million per year. However, much of the revenue from. property taxes is alreadv committed to
funding certain City programs.
The California Constitution requires San Francisco voter approval for any tax increase to general taxes or
special taxes. The City may not impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless the tax is submitted to
the electorate and approved by a majority vote The City may not impose, extend, cr increase any special
tax (for example, for a public financing program) unless the tax is submitted to the electorate and approved
by a two-thirds vote. {See Cal. Constitution Article 13(C)(2).) According to Controller Harrington,
because a fee is only allowed to recover the costs of providing a service, a surcharge on a fee would
probably be considered a tax subject to voter approval
Attachment I
Alan Gibson Pa ^ e 3 ot b
OfBce of the Budget Analyst
March 7, 2000
Page 3
3. Voluntary Contributions
As another alternative source of funding, the City could also solicit contributions from taxpayers for the
public financing program. The City currently solicits contributions from taxpayers to fund youth and
children services. (See S.F. Admin. Code Chapter 51 A.)
The City could request voluntary contributions through voter registration cards, voter information
pamphlets and other materials distributed by the Ethics Commission or the Department of Elections. The
revenue from these contributions could be set aside in the Election Campaign Fund, which is specifically
designed for disbursing public funds to eligible candidates.
However, based on the data gathered by staff and conversations with representatives of jurisdictions that
have voluntary contributions, such programs have proven unsuccessful. For example, public participation
in the federal tax check-off has gradually decreased in recent years from a high of 28 percent in 1980 to
less than 12 percent in 1997.
III. Projected Election Campaign Fund Budget
The projected budget for the proposed Election Campaign Fund depends on the number of vacant seats per
district and the number of candidates that qualify for public financing and whether run-off elections are
required.
In the 2000 general election, all 1 1 seats for the Board of Supervisors will be vacant. After the 2000
general election, the clerk of the Board of Supervisors will determine by lot whether the supervisors elected
from the even or odd-numbered districts will have terms expiring m two or four years. (See Charter
Section 13.1 10(f).) Accordingly, there will be either five or six vacant seats in 2002 and 2004. For
purposes of this memorandum, it is assumed that there will be five vacant seats in the 2002 general election
and six vacant seats in the 2004 general election.
Because it is difficult to predict a minimum or maximum cost of the program, the Commission staff
developed assumptions as to how many candidates will participate in the program in the next three general
elections. (See Attachment 1: Cost Projections for Public Financing Proposal.) The attachment assumes
that at least two candidates per district will receive public financing in the general election and at least one
candidate per district will receive public financing in the run-off election. Based on these assumptions, the
staff estimated a range of projected costs for all three elections, as described below in Table 1.
Table 1
Year
Range of Costs
2000
$1,007,000-52,728.000
2002
$467,000-51.240,000
2004
5557,000-51.488.000
IV. Projected Administrative Costs to the Ethics Commission
The administrative costs associated with the program depend, in pan, on the number of candidates that
apply for public financing. The number of candidates in a particular election will affect the amount of time
staff will spend on the certification and appeals process and the total number of audits to be performed
Most of the administrative costs are projected for personnel needs It is important to note that with a full-
time staff of seven, the Ethics Commission is not able to fulfill all of its current Charter mandates. For this
9Q
Attachment I
Alan Gibson Page 5 of 5
Office of the Budget Analyst
March 7, 2000
Page 4
reason, it is imperative that the Commission obtain additional staff to administer the public finance
program.
The Commission estimates that it will need at least two additional full-time professional employees to
implement and administer the program. 1 However, the cost to the Ethics Commission might be greater at
the outset of the program, considering the short timeframe contemplated for enactment of the proposal It
may be necessary to hire three full-time employees (two professional employees and one clerical employee)
for a period of six months in order to implement the proposal and thereafter reduce the total number of
additional staff to two. In addition, the Commission estimates that there will be non-personnel costs
associated with the program, such as resources for additional personnel and costs for materials and
mailings. The estimated administrative costs are described below in Table 2.
Table 2
Item
Amount
Salaries of 2 FT professional employees*
$100,000
Salary of 1 FT clerical employee (a) 6 months
$17,000
Non-personnel costs
$20,000
Total
$137,000
If the proposal is implemented in this fiscal year, the Commission would be required to request a
supplemental appropriation for its FY 2000-2001 budget. Some initial start-up costs, such as drafting
regulations, manuals and forms, may be required to be absorbed by the Commission's current budget.
The proposal has fiscal implications for other City departments, tncluding the offices of the Controller and
the City Attorney. The proposal provides that the Commission may request the assistance of the Controller
in the review process and requires the Controller to disburse payments to candidates from the Fund The
proposal also provides that the Controller assist in conducting audits of all candidates who receive public
financing. The City Attorney's Office, which is the legal advisor to the Ethics Commission, would assist
the Commission staff in drafting implementing regulations.
The staff gathered information about the administrative costs in jurisdictions that have partial public
financing programs. It is important to note that most of the jurisdictions provide public financing to
candidates running for several elected offices, such as the office of Mayor, City Attorney, District Attomev
and/or Controller. The Ethics Commission proposes providing funding only to candidates for the Board of
Supervisors. Also, please note that some of the cities that have public finance programs have agencies that
only handle campaign finance issues, such as the New York City Campaign Finance Board. The San
Francisco Ethics Commission handles a variety of issues, including, but not limited to, campaign finance
laws
The Los .Angeles City Ethics Commission, which like the San Francisco Ethics Commission administers a
variety of programs, could not provide specific information regarding overall administrative costs of its
public finance program. In addition to the several auditors who audit publicly financed candidates, Los
.Angeles employed roughly 1 ' : .Analysts in the most recent election to administer the program for four
One employee would administer the program, including creating all necessary forms, manuals and training
materials, giving advice and reviewing all submitted documentation. The other employee would work with the
Controller's office to conduct audits of all participating candidates.
* This amount includes mandatory fringe benefits.
Attachment I
Alan Gibson Fape b of 5
Office of the Budget Analyst
March 7, 2000
Page 5
months at a cost of SI 8,000. 3 The New York City Campaign Finance Board was not able to provide
specific information regarding the administrative costs of its public financing program. The Board's total
budget is estimated at S3 million, including S2 million in personnel costs for its 47 staff members. The
City of Long Beach could not provide an estimate regarding the cost of administration of its program. The
City of Tucson provided staff with some information regarding the cost of auditing participating
candidates, which it estimated were $14,725 in 1997, but it did not have specific information about overall
administrative costs. The City of Oakland recently passed a public financing proposal which sets aside 7.5
percent of that city's Election Campaign Fund of 5230,000 for the cost of administration to the Oakland
City Ethics Commission and the City Auditor, or 517,250.
I hope you find this memo responsive to your inquiries. If you have questions, or need additional
information, please contact me at (415) 554-95 10.
\ETHICS-01SVR\DATA\SHARED\Public FinanceVBudget Analyst\BudgetAnalyst2.doc
This amount docs not include auditing costs or costs associated with training, the issuance of advice, or materials
More importantly, these figures change on an annual basis, depending on the number of candidates running for
office and the number of participants in the public financing program. The Los Angeles Ethics Commission could
not estimate the costs incurred by the Controller with respect to releasing public funds to candidates
Attachment II
Cost Projections for Public Financing Proposal
of San Francisco Ethics Commission
Pape
L of 9
Table No.
1: General Election Costs
Scenario
No. of Vacant
Seats
Average No.
of
Participating
Candidates
per District
Projected Cost to
City per
Candidate
Projected
Cost to City
per Election
G-l (2000)
11
2 545,000
S990,000
G-2 (2000)
11
3 545,000
SI, 485,000
G-3 (2000)
G-4 (2002)
11
5
4 S45,000
2 ~"s45Tb66
SI, 980,000
S450,000
G-5 (2002)
5
3 545,000
S675,000
G-6J2002)
6-7(2004)"
-"• ■:- —71-
5
~6
4 545,000
2| 545,000
5900,000
5540,000
G-8 (2004)
6
3 545,000
5810,000
G-9 (2004)
6
4 545,000
51,080,000
Table No. 2: Runoff Election Costs
No. of Districts
with Runoff
Elections
No. of
Participating
Candidates
Projected Cost to
City per
Candidate
Projected
Cost to City
per Election
R-l
11
2; 534,000
S748.000
R-2
11
1 517,000
5187,000
R-3
10
2 534,000
S680,000
R-4
10
1 517,000
SI 70,000
R-5
9
2 S34,000
S6 12,000
R-6
9
1 SI 7,000
SI 53,000
R-7
8
2 S34.000
S544.000
R-8
8
1 SI 7,000
SI 36,000
R-9
7
2 534,000
S476.000
R-10
7
1 517,000
SI 19.000
R-ll
6
2 534,000
S408.000
R-12
6
1 517,000
SI 02.000
R-13
5
2 534,000
S340,000
R-14
5
1 517,000
S85,000
R-15
4
2 S34,000
S272.000
R-16
4
1 SI 7,000
S68.000
R-17
3
2 S34.000
S204.000
R-18
]
1 SI 7,000
S5 1,000
R-19
2
2 S34,000
SI 36,000
R-20
j
1 SI 7,000
S34.000
R-21
1
2 534,000
S68.000
R-22
1
1 SI 7,000
SI ".000
Key: G = General Election
R = Runoff Election
p. 1 of 1
Attachment II
Paee 2 of 9
p. 1 of 3
Table 2
: Range of Costs for 2000 Election*
Scenario
General Election
4 Scenario
Runoff Election
Scenario
Projected Cost of
Year 2000
General Election
Projected Cost of
Year 2000
Runoff Elections:
Projected Costs of
General and
Runoff, Year 2000
Election
G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1
1 offices)
R- 1 (11 runoffs/2
candidates)
3990,000
5748,000
Sl,738,000
G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1
2 offices)
R-2 (11 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
5990,000
1
5187,000:
51,177,000
G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1
3 offices)
R-3( 10 runoffs/2
candidates)
5990,000
5680,000
51,670,000
G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1
4 offices)
R-4( 10 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
S990,000
5170,000;
51,160,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
5 offices)
R-5 (9 runoffs/2
candidates)
S990,000
5612,000
51,602,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
6 offices)
R-6 (9 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
5990,000
5153,000
51,143,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
7 offices)
R-7 (8 runoffs/2
candidates)
5990,000
5544,000 !
51,534,000
G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1
8 offices)
R-8 (8 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
5990,000
5136,000;
SI, 126,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
9 offices)
R-9 (7 runoffs/2
candidates)
S990,000
5476,000
SI, 466,000
; G-1 (2 candidates/11
10 offices)
R-10 (7 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
5990,000
5119,000
51,109,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
1 1 offices)
R-ll (6 runoffs/2
candidates)
5990,000
5408,000
51,398,000
G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1
12 offices)
R-12 (6 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
S990,000
5102,000
51,092,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 11
13 offices)
R-13 (5 runoffs/2
candidates)
5990,000
5340,000
51,330,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
14 offices)
R-14 (5 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
5990,000
S85,00O
Sl,075,000
G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1
15 offices)
R-15 (4 runoffs- 2
candidates)
5990,000
5272,000
SI, 262,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
16 offices)
R- 1 6 (4 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
5990,000
568,000
SI, 058,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
17 offices)
R-17 (3 runoffs/2
candidates)
5990,000
S204.000
SI, 194,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
IS offices)
R-18 (3 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
5990.000
S5 1,000
SI, 04 1, 000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
19 offices)
R-19(2runoffs-2
candidates)
5990,000
5136,000
SI, 126,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 1
20 offices)
R-20 (2 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
5990,000
534,000
S 1,024,000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
21 offices)
R-21 (1 runoff/2
candidates)
5990,000
568,000
S 1,058.000
G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1
22 offices)
R-22 (1 runoff 1
candidate)
S990.000
SI 7,000
5 1.007,000
All 1 1 seats are vacant.
Attachment II
Page 3 of 9
p. 2 of 3
Table V. Range of Costs for 2000 Election*
Scenario #
, Projected Costs of
Projected Cost of Projected Cost of General and
General Election Runoff Election Year 2000 Year 2000 Runoff, Year 2000
Scenario Scenario General Election Runoff Elections Election
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 jR-1 (1 1 nmofTs/2
23 i offices) 'candidates) SI, 485,000 5748,000 | S2.233.000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-2 ( 1 1 runoffs/ 1
24, offices) 1 candidate) SI, 485,000 5187,000' SI, 672,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 :R-3 (10 runoffs/ 2
25 offices) candidates) Sl.485.000i S680,000< S2.165.000
|G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R-J (10 runoffs/ 1
26 offices) (candidate) 51.485.000 5170,000 51,655,000
27
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11
offices)
R-5 (9 runoffs/2
candidates) 51, 485,000 1 5612,000 52,097,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11
28 'offices)
R-6 (9 runoffs/ 1
candidate) 51,485,000 5153,000 51,638,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R-7 (8 runoffs/2
29 offices) (candidates) 51,485,000 5544,000 52,029,000
IG-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R-8 (8 runoffs/ 1
30ioffices) candidate) 51,485,000 5136,000 51,621,000
31
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11
offices)
R-9 (7 runoffs/2
candidates) Sl,485,0O0l 5476,0001 51,961,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1
32 offices)
R-10 (7 runoffs/ 1
candidate) Sl.485,000 5119,000 Sl.604,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-l 1 (6 runoffs/2
33 offices) candidates) SI. 485,000 5408.000 SI, 893,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 1 2 (6 runoffs/ 1
34 offices) candidate) 51,485,000 5102,000 51,587,000
IG-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 13 (5 runoffs/2
35 offices) candidates) 51,485,000 5340,000 51,825,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-14 (5 runoffs/ 1
36 offices) candidate) 51, 485.000 585.000 51,570,000
G-2 (3 candidates'! 1 R-15 (4 runoffv2
37 offices) candidates) SI. 485,000 5272,000! 51,757,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 1 6 (4 runoffs/ 1
38 offices) candidate) 51,485,000 S68.000 Sl.553,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-l 7 (3 runoffs/2
39 offices) candidates) S1.4S5.000 S204.000 51,689,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 1 8 (3 runoffs/ 1
40 offices) candidate) 51,485,000 551,000 51,536.000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 1 9 (2 runoffs/2
41 offices) candidates) SI. 485,000 SI 36.000 51,621.000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-20 (2 runoffs; 1
42 offices) candidate) 51,485,000 534,000 51,519,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R-2 1 ( 1 runoff 2
43 offices) candidates) Sl.485.000 S68.000 Sl.553,000
G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-22 (1 runoff/ 1
44 offices) candidate) Sl.485.000 Si 7.000 S 1.502.000
* All 11 seats are vacant.
p. 3 of 3
Attachment II
Page 4 of 9
Table 2
: Range of Costs for 2000 Election*
Scenario #
General Election
Scenario
Runoff Election
Scenario
Projected Cost of j Projected Cost of
Year 2000 Year 2000
General Election Runoff Elections
Projected Costs of
General and
Runoff, Year 2000
Election
jG-3 (4 candidates/ 11
45 (offices)
R-l (11 runoffs/2
candidates)
51,980,000
5748,000
52,728,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
46 (offices)
R-2(ll runoffs/ 1
candidate)
51,980,000
5187,000
52,167,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 11
47 offices)
R-3 (10 runoffs/2
candidates)
51,980,000
5680,000
52,660,000
48
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
offices)
R-4 (10 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
51,980,000
5170,000
52,150,000
G-3 (4 candidates/1 1
49 i offices)
R-5 (9 runoffs/2
candidates)
51,980,000
5612,000
52,592,000
50
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
offices)
R-6 (9 runoffs/1
candidate)
51,980,000
5153,000
52,133,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
5 1 offices)
R-7 (8 runoffs/2
candidates)
51,980,000
5544,000
52,524,000
52
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
offices)
R-8 (8 runoffs/1
candidate)
51,980,000
5136,000
52,116,000
|G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
53l offices)
R-9 (7 runoffs/2
candidates)
51,980,000
5476,000
52,456,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
54 j offices)
R-10 (7 runoffs/1
candidate)
51,980,000
5119,000
52,099,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
55 1 offices)
R-ll (6 runoffs/2
candidates)
51,980,000
5408,000
52,388,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 11
56 offices)
R-l 2 (6 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
51,980,000
5102,000
52,082,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 11
57 i offices)
R-l 3 (5 runoffs/2
candidates)
51,980,000
5340,000
52,320,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
58 i offices)
R-l 4 (5 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
51,980,000
585,000
52,065,000
'G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
59 : offices)
|R-15 (4 runoffs/2
i candidates)
51,980,000
5272,000
52,252,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 11
60; offices)
R-l 6 (4 runoffs/1
candidate)
51,980,000
568,000
52,048,000
iG-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
61 ! offices)
jR-17 (3 runoffs/2
candidates)
si^so.ooo
5204,000
52,184,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
62! offices)
R-l 8 (3 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
51,980,000
551,000
52,031,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
63 offices)
|R-19 (2 runoffs/2
candidates)
51,980,000
5136,000
i
52,116,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
64 offices)
;R-20 (2 runoffs/ 1
candidate)
1
51,980,000
534,000
52,014,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
65 offices)
R-21 (1 runoff/2
| candidates)
S1,9S0,000
568,000
1
52,048,000
G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1
66 offices)
; R-22(1 runoff/ 1
candidate)
51,980.000
517,000
51,997.000
All 11 seats are vacant.
1 of 2
Attachment II
Page 5 of 9
Table 4: Range
nf Costs for 2002 Flection
t
i General
Election
Scenario tt Scenario
Runoff
Election
Scenario ••
Projected Cost of
Year 2002
General Election
Projected Cost of
Year 2002
Runoff Elections
Combined
Projected Costs
of General and
Runoff, Year
2002 Election
G-4(2 R-13 (5
candidates/5 1 runoffs/2
1 offices) candidates)
S450.000
5340.000
5790,000
G-4(2 R-14(5
candidates/ 5 runoffs/ 1
2offices) candidate)
S450.000
585,000
5535,000
,G-*(2 R-15(4
candidates/5 runoffs/2
3loffices) candidates)
5450,000
5272,000
5722.000
|G-4(2 R-16(4
candidates/5 i runoffs/ 1
4 offices) candidate)
5450,000
568.000
5518,000
,G-4(2 | R- 1 7 (3
candidates/5 runoffs/2
5 offices) i candidates)
5450,000
5204,000
5654,000
iG-4(2 R-18(3
candidates/5 runoffs/ 1
6 (offices) candidate)
5450.000
551.000
5501.000
G-4(2 R-19(2
candidates/5 runoffs/2
7 offices) candidates)
5450.000
5136.000
5586.000
G-4(2 R-20(2
candidates/5 runoffs- 1
8 offices) candidate)
S450.000
534.000
5484.000
G-4(2 R-21
candidates/5 (1 runoff/2
9 offices) candidates)
S4 50.000
568.000
5518.000
G-4(2 R-22(l
candidates/ 5 runoff/' 1
10 offices) candidate)
G-"5(T "|R43
candidates/5 runoffs 2
12 offices) candidates)
S450.000
SI 7,000
S467.000
51.015.000
S675.000
S340.000
G-5(3 R-14(5
candidates/5 runoffs 1
13 offices) candidate)
5675,000
585.000
5760.000
G-5(3 R-15(4
candidates 5 runoffs 2
14 offices) candidates)
S675.000
5272.000
S947.000
G-5(3 R-16(4
candidates' 5 runoffsi
15 offices) candidate)
S675.000
S68.000
5743,000
G-5(3 R-17(3
candidates? runoffs 2
16 offices) candidates)
S 6" 5. 000
S204.000
S8-9.000
* Assumes 5 vacant seats.
** Scenarios R-l to R-12 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than five districts.
p. 2 of 2
Attachment II
Page 6 of 9
Table 4: Range of Costs for 2002 Flection*
Scenario #
General
Ek :non
Scenario
Runoff
Election
Scenario **
Combined
Projected Costs
Projected Cost of j Projected Cost of! of General and
Year 2002 Year 2002 Runoff, Year
General Election i Runoff Elections i 2002 Election
17
G-5 (3 IR-18 (3
candidates/5 1 runoffs/ 1
offices) Icandidate) ! 5675,0001 551,000
5726,000
G-5 (3 IR-19 (2
candidates/5 1 runoffs/2
18loffices) candidates) 1 5675,0001 5136,0001 5811,000
G-5 (3
candidates/5
19' offices)
R-20 (2
runoffs/1
candidate)
5675,000
534,000
5709,000
20
G-5 (3
candidates/5
offices)
R-21
(1 runoff/2
candidates)
5675,0001 568,000 5743,000
21
,'-^'.'-.'.:.J_.:^:iili
23
G-5 (3 IR-22 (1
candidates/5 i runoff/1
offices) 1 candidate)
G^6(4 tJB "lR^3(5
candidates/5 runoffs/2
offices) candidates)
S675,000| 517,000
5900,000 5340,000
5692,000
51,240,000
G-6(4 IR-14 (5
candidates/5 runoffs/1
24 offices) candidate) ! 5900,0001 585,000' 5985,000
G-6(4 |R-15(4
i candidates/5 runoffs/2
25 1 offices) 1 candidates) 1 5900,000' 5272,000; 51,172.000
jG-6(4 ; R-16(4
j candidates/5 ■ runoffs/ 1
26 offices) candidate) ''' 5900,000
568,000 5968,000
jG-6 (4 jR-17 (3
candidates/5 runoffs/2
27! offices) 'candidates) i 5900,000
1
5204,000 51,104.000
|G-6(4 !R-18(3
candidates/5, runoffs/1 i ,
28 i offices) 'candidate) 5900,000; 551,000 5951.000
|G-6(4 :R-19(2
candidates/5 runoffs/2
29 offices) Candidates) 5900,000 5136,000 51.036,000
,G-6(4 R-20 (2
candidates/5 runoffs/1
30 'offices) candidate) 5900.000 534,000 5934,000
G-6(4 R-21
candidates/5 (1 runoff/2
31 'offices) Candidates) $900,000 568,000 5968.000
|G-6(4 ;R-22(1
candidates/5 runoff/1
32 'offices) candidate) S900.000 517,000 S9 17.000
* Assumes 5 vacant seats.
** Scenarios R-l to R-12 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than five districts.
p. 1 of 3
Attachment II
Page 7 of 9
Table 5: Range
of Costs for 2004 Flection
\1
General
Election
Scenario # Scenario
Runoff
Elecnon
Scenarios"
Projected Cost of Projected Cost of
Year 2004 Year 2004
General Election Runoff Elections
Combined
Projected Costs
of General and
Runoff, Year
2004 Election
G-7(2 R-ll (6
candidates/6 runoffs/ 2
1 offices) candidates)
5540,000
S408.000
5948,000
G-7(2 R-12(6
candidates/6 runoffs/ 1
2 offices) candidate)
S540.000
5102,000
5642,000
G-7(2 R-13 (5
candidates/6 runoffs 2
3 'offices) candidates)
5540,000
5340,000
5880,000
!G-7(2 ;R-14(5
candidates' 6 runoffs/ 1
4 offices) candidate)
S540.000
S85.000
5625,000
5
G-7(2 R-I5(4
candidates6 runoffs/2
offices) candidates)
5540,000
S272.000
5812,000
!G-7(2 R-16(4
candidates/6 runoffs/ 1
6 offices) candidate)
5540,000
S68.000
5608.000
;G-7(2 R-17(3
candidates/6 runoffs 2
7 offices) candidates)
S540.000
5204,000
5744,000
G-7(2 R-18(3
candidates/6 runoffs/1
8 offices) candidate)
5540,000
551,000
5591,000
G-7(2 R-19(2
candidates/6 runoffs 2
9 offices) candidates)
5540.000
5136.000
S676.000
G-7(2 R-20(2
candidates 6 runoffs 1
10 offices) candidate)
S540.000
S34.000
5574,000
G-7(2 R-21
candidates 6 (1 runoff/2
11 offices) candidates)
S540.000
S6S.000
5608.000
G-7(2 R-22(l
candidates'6 runoff' 1
12 offices) candidate)
~G-S(3 R-Yi ,V (6
candidates/6 runoffs 2
14 offices) candidates)
S540.000
5S 10.000
SI 7,000
S408.000
S557.000
S 1,2 18,000
G-8(3 R-12(6
candidates6 runoffs 1
15 offices) candidate)
SS 10.000
S 102.000
S9 12,000
G-8(3 R-13 (5
candidates 6 runoffs 2
16 offices) candidates)
SSI 0.000
s:-4o.ooo
SI. 150.000
* Assumes 6 vacant seats.
** Scenarios R-l to R-10 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than six districts.
p. 2 of 3
Attachment II
Page 8 of 9
Scenario #
General
Election
Scenario
Runoff
Election
Scenarios**
Projected Cost of
Year 2004
General E' action
Projected Cost of
Year 2004
Runoff Elections
Combined
Projected Costs
of General and
Runoff, Year
2004 Election
G-8 (3 |R-14(5
candidates/6 ! runo ffs/ 1
17|offices) Candidate)
5810,000
585,000
5895,000
G-8 (3 |R-15(4
candidates/6 • runoffs/2
18 offices) candidates)
$810,000
5272,000
51,082,000
19
G-8 (3 |R-16(4
candidates/6 runoffs/1
offices) candidate)
5810,000
568,000
5878,000
20
G-8 (3
candidates/6
offices)
R-17(3
runoffs/2
candidates)
5810,000
5204,000
51,014,000
21
G-8 (3
candidates/6
offices)
R-18(3
runo ffs/ 1
candidate)
5810,000
551,000
5861,000
22
G-8 (3 R-19 (2
candidates/6 runoffs/2
offices) 'candidates)
5810,000
5136,000
5946,000
G-8 (3 |R-20(2
candidates/6 runoffs/ 1
23 i offices) (candidate)
5810,000
534,000
5844,000
|G-8 (3 IR-21
candidates/6 ; ( 1 runoff/2
241 offices) candidates)
5810,000
568,000
5878,000
IG-8 (3 iR-22 (1
1 !
candidates/6 runoff/1
25 1 offices) 1 candidate)
G-9(/f " " [R-ll** (6 "'
candidates/6 runoffs/ 2
27 ! offices) .candidates)
5810,000
51,080,000
517,000
5408,000
5827,000
51,488,000
jG-9(4 jR-12 (6
candidates/6 ' runoffs/ 1
28 offices) candidate)
51,080,000
5102,000
51,182,000
|G-9(4 ,R-13(5
candidates/6 runoffs/2
29 offices) candidates)
S 1,080,000
5340,000
51,420,000
;G-9(4 R-14(5
candidates/6 runoffs/1
30 'Offices) candidate)
51,080,000
S85.000
51,165.000
G-9(4 R-15(4
candidates/6 runoffsV2
31 offices) candidates)
51,080,000
5272,000
SI, 352.000
,G-9 (4 R-16(4
candidates/6 runoffs/ 1
32 offices'! candidate)
51.080.000
S68.000
51.148.000
* Assumes 6 vacant seats.
** Scenarios R-l to R-10 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than six districts.
7Cl
p. 3 of 3
Attachment II
Pape 9 of 9
Scenario #
General
Election
Scenario
Runoff
Election
Scenarios"
Combined
Projected Costs
Projected Cost of Projected Cost of of General and
Year 2004 Year 2004 Runoff, Year
General Election Runoff Elections 2004 Election
G-9(4 R-17(3
candidates/6 runoffs/2
33 offices) candidates) Sl.080,000 $204,000 51284,000
|G-9(4 R-18(3
candidates/6 . runoffs/ 1
34! offices) candidate) Sl.080,000 S5 1,000
51,131.000
G-9(4 lR-19 (2
candidates/6 1 runoffs/2
35ioffices) candidates) Sl.080.000l 5136.000 51.216,000
G-9(4 ,R-20(2
candidates/6 runoffs/ 1
36loffices) icandidate) Sl.080,000
534.000
Sl.114,000
G-9(4 :R-21
candidates/6 (1 runoff/2
37offices) Candidates) 51,080,000 S68.000 51,148,000
G-9(4 R-22 (1
candidates/'6irunoff71
38 offices) Candidate) 51.080.000
517.000 51.097.000
* Assumes 6 vacant seats.
** Scenarios R-l to R-10 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than six districts.
City and County of §an Francisco
Meeting JMinutes
^Finance and Labor Committee
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano
Clerk: Man Red
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
94102^*689
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
10:00 AM
Regular Meeting
City Hall, Room 263
Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano.
Meeting Convened
000328
The meeting convened at 10.08 a.m.
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
APR t 8 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
|Public Financing and Disclosure for Campaigns!
Supervisor Ammiano
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for
public financing of election campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-10 to provide for
increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures.
(Fiscal impact: Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18;and Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550.10.)
2/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
4/5/00, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee Supervisor Ammiano;
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ginny Vida, Executive Director, Ethics Commission; Naomi Starkman, Ethics
Commission; Claire Sylvia, Deputy City Attorney; Paul Melbostad. Ethics Commission. In Support: Jim Knox. California Common
Cause (CCC); Rebecca Silverberg. Coalition lor S. F. Neighborhoods (CSFN); Steven Currier; Mane Hamson; Bud Wilson. Greater West
Portal; Joan Girardot, President, CSFN; Bill Rangfeld, CCC; Joan Kingery, CCC. Amendment of the Whole continued to April 12, 2000.
4/5/00, CONTINUED AS AMENDED.
Heard in Committee. Speakers. Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Supervisor Ammiano; Ginny Vida, Executive
Director, Ethics Commission: Supenisor Bierman. Continued to April 19. 2000. See Files 999685 and
000687 prepared in committee as ordinances.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000685 [Public Financing of Election Campaigns!
Supervisor Ammiano
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code to add Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549-18 to
provide for public financing of election campaigns.
(Fiscal Impact; Adds Section 16.549-1 through 16.549-18)
I /card in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Supenisor Ammiano; Ginny Vida, Executive
Director. Ethics Commission; Supervisor Bierman See File 000328
PREPARED IN COMMITTEE AS AN ORDIN \\< E b) the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
Continued lo April 19, 2000
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at I0 : ;S IW on 4 1 4 III!
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes tprtt 12. 2000
000687 [Public Matching Funds ami Disclosure ol Campaigns]
Supervisor Ammiano
Ordinance amending the San Franc isco Administrative (ode to add Sections l<> 549-1 through 16.549-18 to
provide foi public matching funds to candidates foi local office who aie targeted by large independent
expenditure campaigns and to add Sections 16.550 1 through 16.550-10 to provide foi increased disclosure of
campaign contributions and expenditures
(Fiscal Impact. Adds Section 16 549-1 through 16.549-18 and adds Section 16.550.1 through 16.550-10)
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Supervisor Ammiano, Ginny Vida, Executive
Director, Ethics Commission. Supervisor Bierman See File 0003
I'KKPARKl) I.N (OMMIIIH \s \\<>KI>I\\\< I l>> the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
Continued to April 19, 2000
CONTINU1 I) in the following rate:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
t **>23 1 7 [Establishing < 'ourthouse ( 'hildren'i \n aiting Rooms Kund|
Supen isors Kat/. I 'eng
Ordinance amending Administrative (ode by adding Section 1<» I 17-125 to impose a surcharge of five dollars
for the filing in Superior Court of specified initial pleadings and to appropriate the surcharge to pay costs,
excluding capital outlay, related to the maintenance of children's waiting rooms at the Hall of Justice and Civic
Center Courthouse
(Adds Section 10.117-125.)
12 20/99, ASSIGNED 1 NDER 30 DAY RULE to I inanceand I iboi Committee, expire* c
Heard in Committee Speakers Hane\ Rose. Budget Analyst, Alan Carlson. ChieJ I
Superior Court; Janet Michaelson, Ante to Supervisor Kat:. Geraldine Rosen Park. Women's Lav.
Alliance, Shirley Melnicor, Northern California Service League, Ed Harrington, Controller Amended to
reduce surcharge from five dollars to tour dollars, and change the word "fund" to "account" throughout the
ordinance where the specific Fund is mentioned new title
AMENDED.
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Section 10.1 17-125 to impose a surcharge of four dollars
for the filing in Superior Court of specified initial pleadings and to appropriate the surcharge to pay costs.
excluding capital outlay, related to the maintenance of children's waiting rooms at the Hall of Justice and Ci\ ic
Center Courthouse
(Adds Section 10.117-125 i
RECOMMENDED tS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City- and County- of San Francisco 2 Printed at 10:28 tM on 4 14 N
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2000
000483 [Lease - Windsor Hotel]
Supervisor Newsom
Resolution authorizing and approving the lease by and between the City and County of San Francisco, for the
Department of Public Health, as tenant, and 238 Windsor Associates, as landlord, for the ground floor and
portions of the basement and mezzanine of the "Windsor Hotel" located at 238 Eddy Street.
3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Department of Public
Health; Supervisor Yee.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000486 [Grant - Emergency Shelter Grant Program|
Mayor
Resolution approving the 2000 Emergency Shelter Grants Program and Expenditure Schedule and authorizing
the Mayor on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept, and expend a $890,000
entitlement under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of
Community Development; Daiyl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Super\>isor Yee;
Supervisor Ammiano; David Pearson, Head Start; Dr. Norma Tecson, Filipino American Council; Janelle
Pierce, Rosa Park Senior Center; Helen Davenport; Father Louis Vitale, St. Boniface Neighborhood Center;
Janet Gomes, S. F. Conser\'ation Corp.; Donna Bennett, Milestone; Miguel Wooding, Eviction Collaborative,
Devra Edelman, Haight Ashbury Food Program; Maurice, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center; LaDawn
Law, SFUSD, Child Development Program. Tami Rice-Mitchell, Charles Drew Center; Aurora Mahmack;
Betty H.; Lisa Gray, Young Community Developers; Clarence Shaw, Housing Conservation and Development
Corp.; Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall; Carlos Romero, Mission Housing; Grant Din, Asian Neighborhood
Design; Teresa Verge I; Dominado Purugganan, World War 11 Veteran; Colleen Cassity, Juma Ventures;
Gary K.; Gay Kaplan; Marian Doub. Women for Self Employment; Donna F.; EJmond Tong, Asian, Inc.; Mr.
Young; Claudia Viek, Renaissance Entrepreneur Center Continued to April 19, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco
I'rimcdat 10:28 (M on 4 14 Oil
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 12. 2(1011
000487 [Grant - BOME Program]
Mayor
Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the ( ity jiui ( ount> of Sao Francisco to apply i<>r. accept and administer
a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and I Than Development lor a total amount not to exceed
$7,1 15,000 tor the HOME Program authorized under Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990,
Public Law Number 101-625, and approving the HOME program description as described in the 2000 action
plan for San I rancisco's consolidated plan. Indirect costs associated w uh the acceptance of these grant funds
will be paid by Community Development Block < Irani funds.
3/20/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance tnd I abort omnrittc*
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Pam David. Director. Mayor's Or
Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing, Supervisoi
Supervisor immiano, David Pearson, Head Start, Dr Sorma Tecson, Filipino [merican Council, Janelle
Pierce, Rosa Park Senior ( enter, Helen Davenport, Father Louis Vitale, St Boniftu e Neighborhood Center.
Janet Gomes, S F Conservation Corp . Donna Bennett, Milestone, Miguel Wooding, Eviction Collaborative,
Devra Edelman, Haight Ashbury Food Program, Maurice, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, LaDawn
Law, SFUSD, Child Development Program Tumi Rice-Mitchell, Charles Drew Center Aurora Martmack,
Betty II . Lisa Gray, Young Community Developers, Clarence Shaw, Housing Conservation and Development
Cop. Barbara Brown, Homer Marshall, Carlos Romero Mission Housing, Grant Din, isian Neighborhood
Design; Teresa Vergel, Dominado Purugganan, World War II Veteran Colleen Cassity, Junta Ventures,
Gary A . Gay Kaplan, Marian Doub, Women far Self Employment, Donna F., Edmond Tong, Asian, Im
Young, Claudia Viek, Renaissance Entrepreneur Center Continued to April 19, 2000
< o\ i im I I) i>\ the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000488 |Grant - 2000 ("DB( . |
Mayor
Resolution approving the 2000 ( ommunity Development Program authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the
CitJ and County of San Francisco, to accept and expend the City's 2000 Community Development Block
Giant (CDBG) Entitlement from the U S Department of Housing and Irban Development, and program
income generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $33,734,275 which include indirect
costs of SI 60,000; and approving expenditure schedules for recipient departments and agencies for indirect
costs.
3/20/00, RK I l\ I DAND \SSIGNI I) to I inane* and I abor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Pam David, Dii eeof
Community Development. Diiryl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing. Supervisoi
Supervisor Ammiano. David Pearson, Head Start, Dr Norma Tecson. Filipino American Council, Janelle
Pierce. Rosa Park Senior Center, Helen Davenport. Father Louis Vitale, St ll \hborhood Center ,
Janet Gomes. S F Conservation Corp Donna Bennett. Milestone. Miguel Hooding. Eviction Collaborative.
Devra Edelman. Haight Ashbury Food Program. Maurice, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center. LaDawn
Law. SFUSD, Child Development Program Tami Rice-Mitchell, Charles Drew Center; Aurora Manmack;
Betn H . Lisa Gray, Young Community Developers, Clarence Shaw. II, . nation and Development
Corp.; Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall. Carlos Romero Mission Housing; Grant Dm. Asian Seighborhood
•gel. Dominado Purugganan. World War II Veteran, Colleen Cassity, Juma Ventures;
Gary K ; Gay Kaplan; Marian Douh. Women for Self Employment; Donna F ; Edmond Tong. Asian. Inc Mr
Young. Claudia I iek. Renaissance Entrepreneur Center Continued to April 19. 2000.
CONTIM ED h> the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 10:28 AM on V1V0O
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2000
000521 [Reserved Funds. Port Commissionl
Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Port Commission (S.F. Harbor Operating Fund Loan Revenue,
File 101-97-44; Ordinance No. 40-98), in the amount of S235.343 for the Hyde Street Harbor Landside
Improvement project. (Port)
3/22/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Imani Haygood. Port.
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000095 [Reserved Funds. Department of Public Health]
Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Public Health (Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Budget) in
the amount of S50.000 to fund an actuarial cost analysis to implement the San Francisco Methadone by
Prescription Program (MPP). (Public Health Department)
I/1 1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
2/2/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers, Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Anne Okubo,
Department of Public Health Department to select contractor and submit contrac; cost details prior to release of reserve. 3/27/00, From
Department of Public Health, submitting contract cost details.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst: Anne Okubo, Department of Public Health.
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000235 [Approving the concession leases of Travelex America. Inc. to operate two (2) ATM facilities at the
Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of S240.500 for each lease|
Resolution approving two Automated Teller Machine Leases for the existing and New International Terminal
Buildings between Travelex America. Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its
Airport Commission. (Airport Commission)
2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
3/1/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 8, 2000.
3/8/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 22, 2000.
3/22/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballesteros,
Airport.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst. Jon Ballesteros, Airport. Amendment of the
Whole relating to Proposition F.
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE.
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000519 [Authorizing extension and renewal of six (6) existing leases for Public Health Outpatient Mental Health
Clinics, Wedge Program and Tobacco Program|
Resolution authorizing extension and renewal of certain existing leases of real property required by the
Department of Public Health. (Real Estate Department)
3/22/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Tony DeLucchi, Director of Property,
Department of Real Estate; Judy Shutsmun. Department of Public Health; Supervisor Bierman Amended
lease No. I from S3, 250 per month to $4,265 per month; same tide
AMENDED.
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco
Primed of 10:28 AM on 4/U/00
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Wnutea Iprii 12, 2000
000032 [Merced Extension Triangle Condominium Complex]
Supervisor Anuniano
Hearing to consider the potential unpads of the 370 unit condominium complex proposed tor the Merced
Extension Triangle neighborhood
1/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance ami I abort omminee
Heard in Committee Speakers Supervisor Ammiano, OzEricson, Emerold Fund, Inc., David Johnson,
( 'hristiani Johnson Architects, Supervisor Bierman, Glen Hatakeyama; Hah Panasewicz, Dwayne Price.
Mary Stephenson, Maureen Ginella; Lois Tenney, Luther White, George Aquiliva, Sh Wan
( 'hristensen, Jon Sievert
( ONTINUED TO ( All. OK THE C II MR.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned <it ~ 15 p.m
City and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at 1 0:2fi i\t
} o. 254-
Susan Horn
Government Documents Section
Main Library
CITY AND COUNTY
OF^AN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
April 6, 2000
TO: finance and Labor Committee DOCUMENTS DFPT
FROM: .Budget Analyst APR 1 I 2000
SUBJECT: April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting g AN r RAWr|C;rn
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Item 1 - File 00-0328
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its
meeting of April 5, 2000. The following report reflects the Amendment of he
Whole submitted to the Finance and Labor Committee at the April 5, 2000
meeting.
Department:
Item:
Description:
Ethics Commission
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through
16.549-18, to provide for public financing of election
campaigns, and to add Article XIIF, Sections 16.550-1
through 16.550-10, to provide for increased disclosure of
campaign contributions and expenditures.
The subject ordinance, as amended by the Amendment of
the Whole, would provide public funds from a newly
established Election Campaign Fund to partially defray
the election campaign costs of each candidate for the
Board of Supervisors who:
(1) is eligible to hold office as a member of the Board of
Supervisors;
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
(2) has received at least $5,000 in contributions of $100 or
less ' ;
(3) is opposed by another candidate who is eligible to
receive public financing, or has received contributions
or made expenditures of at least $10,000, or in the
general election has at least $10,000 in independent
expenditures made against him or her, or in favor of
an opposing candidate; and
grees to
• limit his or her personal contributions to bis or her
■own campaign to $10,000 (unless the voluntary
expenditure ceilings set by Section 16.549-6 (d) (4)
are lifted for the reason.-- outlined in Comment No.
8 below i :
• Limit his or her campaign spending per general
election to $75,000 (unless the voluntary
expenditure ceilings are lifted for the reasons
outlined in Comment No. 8 below);
• participate in at least one debate with his or her
opponents; and
• prove compliance with the subject ordinance's
requirement
Additional public funds would be available to qualifying
candidates who must also contest a run-off election.
Comments: 1. Attachment I. provided by Ms. Naomi Starkman of the
Ethics Commission, explains (a) the alternative available
funding sources for the proposed public financing
program, (b) the projected costs of the original public
financing program proposal presented to the Finance and
Labor Committee by the Ethics Commission, and (c) the
projected costs to the Ethics Commission of administering
the original public financing program proposal.
Attachment II. provided by Ms. Starkman. contains
revised estimates for the personnel and non-personnel
costs to the Ethics Commission of the public financing
program as amended by the Amendment of the Whole.
The Ethics Commission has not estimated the costs to the
City of the public financing program as amended by the
1 While a candidate can accept contributions of up to S500 per contributor under the Campaign
Finance Reform Ordinance, only the first S100 from each contributor would count toward eligibility
for public funds under the proposed ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Amendment of the Whole because Ms. Ginny Vida of the
Ethics Commission advises that Commission staff did not
have sufficient time to fully analyze the amended
legislation.
2. According to Ms. Naomi Starkman of the Ethics
Commission, currently no municipalities in the United
States have full public financing of election campaigns,
while four States have approved, but not implemented,
full public financing programs 2 . However, a number of
United States municipalities and States, and the Federal
Government, operate partial public financing programs.
3. Although the Ethics Commission proposes funding the
subject program from General Fund revenues, it has
conducted research on the following alternative methods
of funding the program: (a) a surcharge on City-imposed
business taxes, (b) a surcharge on City-imposed property
taxes, and (c) voluntary taxpayer contributions.
Attachment I, Part II, explains the issues associated with
these alternative funding options.
4. According to Ms. Julia Moll of the City Attorney's
Office, the subject ordinance would provide authority for
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to appropriate
sufficient monies to (a) an Election Campaign Fund
established under the subject ordinance to partially
defray the election campaign costs of all eligible
candidates, and to (b) the Ethics Commission for
administration costs related to the public financing
program. However, according to Ms. Moll, such
appropriations could only be required by a voter-approved
Charter amendment. Ms. Moll states that this is because
only voter-approved Charter amendments, rather than
ordinances, can limit the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors and the Mayor regarding annual
appropriations. Ms. Moll states that if the Mayor and the
Board of Supervisors do not appropriate sufficient funds,
the public financing program would not operate.
2 The four States which have approved full public financing programs are Arizona, Maine,
Massachusetts, and Vermont.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
5. Under the subject ordinance, as amended by the
Amendment of the Whole, the Ethics Commission would
incur additional costs to administer the public financing
program which would require it to perform a number of
additional functions:
• Adoption of regulations to implement the subject
ordinance and specification of all forms and
statements required to be filed under the subject
ordinance;
• Determination of the annual and supplemental
appropriation needs of (a) the Election Campaign
Fund, and (b) the Ethics Commission for
administration of the public financing program;
• Certification of candidates' eligibility to receive public
funds and, in the case of non-certification, reviewing
appeals;
• Processing of reports filed by (a) candidates who do not
receive public funds but who do receive or expend
funds over a specified threshold, and (b) committees
which make election campaign contributions over
specified thresholds 3 ;
• Processing of copies of electronic, printed, or telephone
campaign advertisements filed with the Ethics
Commission;
• Certification of candidates eligible for additional public
funds as a result of lifting voluntary expenditure
ceilings:
• Audits of all candidates who receive public funds
under the subject ordinance:
• Investigation of alleged violations of the subject
ordinance;
• Imposition of administrative penalties for violators of
the subject ordinance:
• Reports to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors after
each election on the public financing program; and
• Preparation and maintenance of the content and
format of a Citv web site for all local elections.
3 The reports required by the proposed ordinance are in addition to the campaign disclosure
requirements imposed by the California Political Reform Act and the San Francisco Campaign
Finance Reform Ordinance.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
4
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
According to Ms. Starkman, the Ethics Commission would
need to employ at least three additional full-time
employees to implement and administer the above
functions at a total estimated cost of $135,000 per year
(inclusive of mandatory fringe benefits). The Ethics
Commission states that it would also need to employ a
clerical employee during the first six months of the
program at a total estimated cost of $17,000. Annual non-
salary operating costs are estimated to be an additional
$25,000 per year. The total estimated cost in the first
year -would therefore be approximately $177,000 (as
shown in Attachment II, Table 1).
6. According to Ms. Vida, the Ethics Commission has not
included in its FY 2000-2001 budget request any
additional funding for the new Ethics Commission
functions related to the proposed public financing
program. Ms. Vida states that if the proposed public
financing program is approved, then the Ethics
Commission would request additional FY 2000-2001
funding through a supplemental appropriation.
7. Under the Amendment of the Whole, unless the
voluntary expenditure ceilings are Lifted (see Comment
No. 8), the maximum amount of public funds that a
candidate for the Board of Supervisors could receive
under the proposed public financing program would be (a)
up to $37,500 for a general election (which is 50 percent of
the $75,000 voluntary expenditure ceiling for a general
election), and (b) up to 100 percent of the $20,000
voluntary expenditure ceiling for a run-off election.
Candidates who receive public funds for a run-off election
would not be permitted to spend private contributions or
personal funds for campaign purposes, unless the
voluntary expenditure ceilings are lifted.
8. Under the Amendment of the Whole, there would be
two triggers for lifting the voluntary expenditure ceiling
in a supervisorial district. Firstly, the voluntary
expenditure ceiling would cease to be binding on any
candidate running m a supervisorial district if any
candidate in the same district who is not participating in
the public financing program receives contributions, has
cash on hand, or makes campaign expenditures in excess
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
5
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
of the applicable voluntary expenditure ceiling. Secondly,
the voluntary expenditure ceiling would cease to be
binding if independent expenditures against any
candidate participating in the public financing program,
or in support of any opposing candidate in that
supervisorial district, exceed 25 percent of the applicable
voluntary expenditure ceiling. If the voluntary
expenditure ceiling are lifted because of spending by
candidates not participating in the public financing
program, eligible candidates would be entitled to receive
an additional $1 in public funds for every $1 raised or
spent. However, if the voluntary expenditure ceilings are
lifted because of independent expenditures against
candidates participating in the public financing program
or in support of opposing candidates, the candidates
targeted by li aditures would be entitled to £1 in
public funds for every SI in independent expenditures
above 25 percent of the voluntary expenditure ceiling.
The maximum additional public funds which could be
awarded by the City would be 100 percent of the
voluntary expenditure ceiling for a general election and
200 percent of the voluntary expenditure ceiling for a run-
off election.
9. In summary, therefore, the costs to the City of the
proposed public financing program, as amended by the
Amendment of the Whole, would be determined in each
Board of Supervisors election cycle by the following
variables:
• The number of candidates who qualify for public
financing in each general election (each one can
receive up to $37,500 in public funds in a general
election);
• The number of candidates who qualify' for public
financing in each run-off election (each one can receive
up to $20,000 in public funds in a run-off election):
• How many supervisorial districts have the voluntary
expenditure ceilings lifted in a general election, and
how many of the candidates in each of those
supervisorial districts are eligible for increased public
financing (each eligible candidate could receive up to
$75,000 in public funds in a general election); and
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
6
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
• How many supervisorial districts have the voluntary
expenditure ceilings lifted in a run-off election, and
how many of the candidates in each of those
supervisorial districts are eligible for increased public
financing (each eligible candidate could receive up to
$40,000 in public funds in a run-off election).
10. Under the Amendment of the Whole, Article XIIF,
Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550-10, would be added to
the subject ordinance to provide for increased disclosure
of campaign contributions and expenditures, and other
information, through:
• Additional pre-election disclosure of election campaign
contributions and expenditures;
• The filing of electronic, printed, or telephone election
campaign advertisements;
• Disclosure of the funder of telephone advertisements
and polls; and
• The creation of a City web site for all local government
elections.
11. Equipment purchased by candidates with public
funds which is worth at least $100 and has continued
useful life would become City property after the election.
Candidates who receive public funds but who withdraw or
fail to qualify for the ballot would be required to repay the
full amount of public funds received. Candidates who
have surplus public funds, or who have received amounts
in excess of their entitlement, would be required to return
the unexpended or excess funds to the Election Campaign
Fund. Under the subject ordinance, candidates who were
required to repay monies would not be required to pay
interest on those repayments.
12. Violators of the public financing provisions of the
subject ordinance could be subject to administrative, civil,
and criminal penalties if they (a) willfully, knowingly, or
negligently misuse public funds, or (b) provide false or
misleading information to, or conceal information from,
the Ethics Commission in relation to the subject public
financing program. Violators could be liable to pay a fine
of up to $5,000 (or, in the case of (a), three times the
amount improperly spent, whichever is greater), or could
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
7
Memo to the Finance and Labor Commit!
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
be imprisoned for up to six months, or both. Violators of
the reporting and disclosure provisions of the subject
ordinance, as added by the Amendment of the Whole,
could be liable to pay a fine of between $500 and $5,000,
or three times the amount not properly reported,
whichever is greater, or could be imprisoned for up to six
months, or both.
Recommendation: Approval of the subject ordinance is a policy matter for
the Hoard of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Ethics Commission
City and County of San Francisco
Attachment I
Pase 1 of 5
Isabella H- Grant
Chairperson
Henri E. Norris
Vice-Chairperson
Robert D.
dockendoref
Commissioner
Carol M. Kingsley
Commissioner
Paul H. Melbostad
Commissioner
Virginia E. Vida
Executive Director
Date:
To:
From:
I.
March 7, 2000
Alan Gibson
Office of the Budget Analyst
Naomi Starkman^_>
Deputy Executive Director
Projected Costs of the Ethics Commission's Proposal for Public Financing of
Election Camoaiens
Introduction
Your office has asked the Ethics Commission to determine the costs associated with the
Commission's proposal for public financing of election campaigns. The purpose of this
memorandum is to: 1) summarize the funding alternatives associated with the public financing
program; 2) estimate the projected budget of the proposed Election Campaign Fund; and
3) estimate the costs to the Ethics Commission associated with administration of the proeram.
II.
Funding Sources
Although the Commission's proposal contemplates funding the public financing proeram through
the City's General Fund, the Commission asked its staff to research funding alternatives for the
program. The results of the staffs research are discussed in a February 16, 2000 memorandum
to the Board of Supervisors entitled, "Report on Funding Alternatives to the General Fund for a
Public Financing Program," and are summarized below.
1 . Comparative Information of other Public Finance Programs
Prior to making its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, Commission staff studied four
cities that have partial public financing of campaigns: Los Angeles, New York City, Long
Beach and Tucson. In addition, the City of Oakland recently approved a public financing
program. All five municipalities fund their public finance programs through their City's General
Fund. Based on the successful experiences of these jurisdictions, the Commission proposes to
fund San Francisco's public financing program through the City's General Fund.
Staff also reviewed the laws of several states that have enacted (but have yet to implement) full
public financing of campaigns: Arizona, Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts. Tne Commission
did not discuss in detail any of the alternative funding options contemplated in these jurisdictions.
Arizona funds its program through the following sources: 1) a S 100 annual fee imposed on
registered lobbyists representing for-profit interests; 2) an additional surcharge often percent
imposed on all civil and criminal fines and penalties; 3) a five-dollar voluntary contribution
check-off on tax return forms; and 4) voluntary donations and tax credits, not to exceed S500 or
20 percent of a resident's annual state income tax liability, whichever is greater.
1390 Market Street, Suite 801 • San Francisco. CA 94102-5302 • Phone (415) 554-9510 • Fax (415) 554-8757
E-Mail Address: ethics_cornmissioruaci.sf.ca.us Web site: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us. chics
Attachment I
Alan Gibson i'age Z ot i>
Office of the Budget Analyst
March 7, 2000
Page 2
Maine has a special, dedicated, non-lapsing Fund and any interest generated by the Fund is credited to the
Fund. The following sources of funding must be deposited in the Fund 1 ) S2 million in revenues from
sales and use taxes and income taxes and credited to the General Fund; 2) a tax check-off program
allowing Maine residents to designate S3 be paid into the Fund, and 3) late filing penalties and penalties for
violations of the Maine Clean Elections Act. The Massachusetts Clean Election Fund receives its funding
from voluntary check-off on the state income tax forms and from appropriations by the state legislature.
Funds are capped at one tenth of one percent of the state budget.
Vermont does not set aside an amount for its Campaign Finance Fund The Fund's revenue sources
include: 1) grant funds unused by publicly funded candidates; 2) penalties and fines levied for violations of
all sections of the campaign finance la>v, 3) 40 percent of the amounts paid as annual report fees by
domestic corporations under Vermont law and 33 percent of the amounts paid as annual report fees bv
foreign corporations under Vermont law; 4) all amounts collected from the tax on lobbying expenditures
imposed under Vermont law, 5) any gifts received by the fund; 6) any amounts appropriate to the Vermont
campaign fund by act of the general assembly; and 7) all principal and interest of the Fund
Staff also reviewed the federal public finance program. Eligible presidential candidates running in the
primary election receive partial public financing and the candidates who are nominated for the general
election receive a full grant of public funds. Funding for the federal program comes from the S3 check-off
that appears on federal income tax forms. While disbursements from the fund arc indexed to inflation, the
S3 tax check-off is not.
2. Surcharges on Citv-Imposed Taxes
.Although the Commission did not contemplate funding the program through a surcharge, the staff discussed
this option with Chief Assistant Treasurer Jay Banneld and Controller Edward Harrington. According to
Chief Assistant Treasurer Banfield, the City collects business taxes and property taxes. Business taxes
include receipts and payroll taxes; hotel tax; parking tax; stadium operator tax; and a transient occupancv
tax. Property taxes include secured tax; unsecured tax; supplemental property transfer tax, and a utihtv
users tax.
The City could consider the possibility of a surcharge on the following business feesAaxes: business
registration license fees (which produce S 10 million/year), parking violation fines and parking taxes. The
City could also consider setting aside a portion of the City's property tax (which produces S600
million/year). According to Controller Harrington, the utility users tax, which is paid only by commercial
users, yields about S60 million per year. A two percent surcharge on the utility users tax would produce
about S 1 .2 million per year. However, much of the revenue from property taxes is already committed to
funding certain City programs.
Tne California Constitution requires San Francisco voter approval for any tax increase tc eeneral taxes or
special taxes. Tne City may not impose, extend or increase any general tax unless the tax is submitted to
the electorate and approved by a majority vote. Tne City may not impose, extend or increase anv special
tax (for example, for a public financing program) unless the tax is submitted to the electorate and amnjvtd
by a two-thirds vote. (See Cal. Constitution .Article 13(C)(2).) According to Controller Harrington,
because a fee is only allowed to recover the costs of providing a service, a surcharge on a fee would
probably be considered a tax subject to voter approval.
in
Attachment I
Alan Gibson ~ °
Office of the Budget Analyst
March 7, 2000
Page 3
3 . Voluntary Contributions
As another alternative source of funding, the Chy could also solicit contributions from taxpayers for the
public finan cing program. The City currently solicits contributions from taxpayers to fund youth and
children services. (See S.F. Admin. Code Chapter 51 A.)
The Chy could request voluntary contributions through voter registration cards, voter information
pamphlets and other materials distributed by the Ethics Commission or the Department of Elections. The
revenue from these contributions could be set aside in the Election Campaign Fund, which is specificallv
designed for disbursing public funds to eligible candidates.
However, based on the data gathered by staff and conversations with representatives of jurisdictions that
have voluntary contributions, such programs have proven unsuccessful. For example, public participation
in the federal tax check-off has gradually decreased in recent years from a high of 28 percent in 1980 to
less than 12 percent in 1997.
III. Projected Election Campaign Fund Budget
Tne projected budget for the proposed Election Campaign Fund depends on the number of vacant seats per
district and the number of candidates that qualify for public financing and whether run-off elections are
required.
In the 2000 general election, all 1 1 seats for the Board of Supervisors will be vacant. After the 2000
general election, the clerk of the Board of Supervisors will determine by lot whether the supervisors elected
from the even or odd-numbered districts will have terms expiring in two or four years. (.See Charter
Section 13.1 10(f).) Accordingly, there will be either five or six. vacant seats in 2002 and 2004. For
purposes of this memorandum, it is assumed that there will be five vacant seats in the 2002 general election
and six vacant seats in the 2004 general election.
Because it is difficult to predict a minimum or maximum cost of the program, the Commission staff
developed assumptions as to how many candidates will participate in the program in the next three general
elections. (See Attachment 1: Cost Projections for Public Financing Proposal.) The attachment assumes
that at least two candidates per district will receive public financing in the general election and at least one
candidate per district will receive public financing in the run-off election. Based on these assumptions, the
staff estimated a range of projected costs for all three elections, as described below in Table 1.
Table 1
| Year
| Range of Costs
| 2000
| $1.007.000 -S2.728.000
2002
| S467.000 - 51,240.000
1 2004
I S557.000-S1.488.000
IV. Projected Administrative Costs to the Ethics Commission
The administrative costs associated with the program depend, in part, on the number of candidates that
apply for public financing. The number of candidates in a particular election will affect the amount of time
staff will spend on the certification and appeals process and the total number of audits to be performed.
Most of the administrative costs are projected for personnel needs. It is important to note that with a full-
time staff of seven, the Ethics Commission is not able to fulfill all of its current Charter mandates. For this
11
Attachment I
Alan Gibson Page 5 of 5
Office of the Budget Analyst
March 7, 2000
Page 4
reason, it is imperative that the Commission obtain additional staff to administer the public finance
program.
The Commission estimates that it will need at least two additional full-time professional employees to
implemen' and administer the program.' However, the cost to the Ethics Commission might be greater at
the outset of the program, considering the short timeframe contemplated for enactment of the proposal. It
may be necessary to hire three full-time employees (two professional employees and one clerical emplovee)
for a period of six months in order to implement the proposal and thereafter reduce the total number of
additional staff to two. In addition, the Commission estimates that there will be non-personnel costs
associated with the program, such as resources for additional personnel and costs for materials and
mailings. The estimated administrative costs are described below in Table 2.
Table 2
Item 1 Amount
Salaries of 2 FT professional emDloyees : SI 00.000
Salarv of 1 FT clerical cmolovee (a. 6 months 1 SI 7.000
Non-personnel costs 1 520,000
Total | S137,000
If the proposal is implemented in this fiscal year, the Commission would be required to request a
supplemental appropriation for its FY 2000-2001 budget. Some minal start-up costs, such as drafting
regulations, manuals and forms, may be required to be absorbed by the Commission's current budget.
The proposal has fiscal implications for other City departments, including the offices of the Controller and
the City Attorney. The proposal provides that the Commission may request the assistance of the Controller
in the review process and requires the Controller to disburse payments to candidates from the Fund. The
proposal also provides that the Controller assist in conducting audits of all candidates who receive public
financing. The City Attorney's Office, which is the legal advisor to the Ethics Commission, would assist
the Commission staff in drafting implementing regulations.
The staff gathered information about the administrative costs in jurisdictions that have partial public
financing programs. It is important to note that most of the jurisdictions provide pubbc financing to
candidates running for several elected offices, such as the office of Mayor, City Attorney, District Attorney
and/or Controller. The Ethics Commission proposes providing funding only to candidates for the Board of
Supervisors. Also, please note that some of the cities that have public finance programs have agencies that
only handle campaign finance issues, such as the New York City Campaign Finance Board. The San
Francisco Ethics Commission handles a \ariety of issues, including, but not limited to, campaien finance
laws.
The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, which like the San Francisco Ethics Commission administers a
variety of programs, could not provide specific information regarding overall administrative costs of its
public finance program. In addition to the several auditors who audit publicly financed candidates. Los
.Angeles employed roughly 1 Yi Anah'sts in the most recent ejection to administer the program for four
One employee would administer the program, including creating all necessary forms, mamiaU and training
materials, giving advice and reviewing all submined documentation. The other employee would work with the
Controller's office to conduct audits of all participating candidates.
* This amount includes mandatory fringe benefits.
12
Attachment I
Alan Gibson ^age D or 5
Office of the Budget Analyst
March 7, 2000
Page 5
months at a cost of S18,000. 3 The New York City- Campaign Finance Board was not able to provide
specific information regarding the administrative costs of its public financing program. The Board's total
budget is estimated at S3 milli on^ including S2 million in personnel costs for its 47 staff members. Tne
City of Long Beach could not provide an estimate regarding the cost of administration of its program. The
City of Tucson provided staff with some information regarding the cost of auditing participating
candidates, which it estimated were S 14,725 in 1997, but it did not have specific information about overall
administrative costs. The City of Oakland recently passed a public financing proposal which sets aside 7.5
percent of that city's Election Campaign Fund of S230,00O for the cost of administration to the Oakland
City Ethics Commission and the City Auditor, or S 17,250.
I hope you find this memo responsive td your inquiries. If you have questions, or need additional
information, please contact me at (415) 554-95 10.
WE7HICS-0 1 S VR\DATA\SHARED\Public Fmanc^Sudgc. Anaiys\BudgnAnalyfi2.doc
Tnis amount does not include auditing costs or costs associated with training, the issuance of advice, or materials.
More importantly, these figures change on an annual basis, depending on the number of candidates running for
office and the number of participants in the public financing program. Tne Los .Angeles Ethics Commission could
not estimate the costs incurred by the Controller with respect to releasing public funds to candidates.
13
Ethics Commission
City and County of San Francisco
Attachment i;
Page 1 o7 3
Isabella H Grant
Chairperson
Henri E. Norris
Vice-Chairperson
Robert D.
Dockendorff
Commissioner
Carol M Kjngsley
Commissioner
Paul H. Melbostad
Commissioner
Virginia E. Vida
Execltive Director
Date April 6, 2000
To Alan Gibson
Office of the Budget Analyst
From Naomi Starkman i~£f
Deputy Executive Director
Re Revised Administrative Costs associated with Supervisor Ammiano's Proposal
for Public Financing of Election Campaigns
I.
Introduction
Your office previously asked the Ethics Commission to determine the costs associated with the
Commission's proposal for public financing of election campaigns [See March 7. 2000 Ethics
Commission memorandum ) At the April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee meeting, the
Commission's proposal was significant!) changed by an .Amendment to the Whole submitted by
Supervisor Ammiano Your office has now asked the Commission to determine the estimated
additional administrative costs associated with Supervisor Ammiano's proposal Please note that
the Commission has not estimated the costs to the City associated with Supervisor .Ammiano's
proposal to disburse public funds to eligible candidates
II.
Revised Administrative Costs to the Ethics Commission
As noted in our March 7, 2000 memo, the administrative costs associated with the program
depend, in part, on the number of candidates that apply for public financing The number of
candidates in a particular election will affect the amount of time staff will spend on the
certification and appeals process and the total number of audits to be performed
A. Personnel Costs
Most of the administrative costs arc projected for personnel needs It is important to note that
with a full-time staff of seven, the Ethics Commission is not able to fulfill all of its current
Charter mandates For this reason, it is imperative that the Commission obtain additional staff to
administer the public finance program The Commission estimates that it will need at least three
additional full-time professional employees to implement and administer the program It also
estimates that it will need one clerical, part-time employee at the outset of the program for a
period of six months
1 Public Finance Administrator
This employee will administer the program, including creating all necessary forms, manuals and
training materials, giving advice and reviewing all submitted documentation for the purpose of
certification After the election, this person will prepare a report to the Board and the Mayor on
the effectiveness of the public financing program, and will assist in performing audits of
1390 Market Street. Suite 801 • San Francisco. CA 94102-5302 • Phone (415) 554-9510 • Fax (41 ;
E-Mail Address ethics commissioned sfca.us Website: http://www.ci.sf.ca us ethics
14
Attachment II
Page 2 of 3
Alan Gibson
Office of the Budget Analyst
April 6, 2000
Page 2
campaign statements filed by participating candidates. This full-time position wall be compensated at
$55,000, including fringe benefits.
2. Public Finance Auditor
This employee will work with the Controller's office to conduct audits of all participating candidates to
determine eligibility. He/she will also absorb the duties associated with the new mandate to certify
candidates eligible for additional public funds if the voluntary spending limits are lifted. This full-time
position will be compensated at S50.000. including fringe benefits.
3. Elections Website Administrator
Acting as a liaison with candidates and ballot measure committees, the Department of Elections, and the
Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, this employee will implement and maintain
the newly mandated City website for elections. This person will be responsible for the content and format
of the website, including the format for debates. He/she will be employed on a full-time, seasonal basis for
a period of seven months, at a cost of S30.000, including fringe benefits.
Because the cost to the Ethics Commission will be greater at the outset of the program (considering the
short timeframe contemplated for enactment of the proposal), it will also be necessary to hire one clerical
employee for a period of six months in order to implement the proposal, at a one-time cost of $17,000
without fringe benefits
B. Non-Personnel Costs
In addition, the Commission estimates that there will be non-personnel costs associated with the program,
such as resources for additional personnel and costs for materials and mailmgs. These costs will be
increased due to additional mandates proposed by the Amendment to the Whole. The Commission had
previously estimated non-personnel costs at $20,000. Due to the necessity of hiring an additional person
and additional processing of copies of electronic, printed and telephone campaign advertisements, the
Commission now estimates its non-personnel costs at $25,000. The additional $5,000 mcludes the cost of
new filing cabinets, additional mailmgs and reproduction costs. The revised estimated administrative costs
are described below in Table 1
Table 1
Item
Amount
Salaries of 3 FT professional employees
$135,000
Salary of 1 FT clerical employee (3^ 6 months
$17,000
Non-personnel costs
$25,000
Total | $177,000
If the proposal is implemented m this fiscal year, the Commission would be required to request a
supplemental appropriation for its FY 2000-2001 budget Some initial start-up costs, such as drafting
regulations, manuals and forms, may be required to be absorbed by the Commission's current budget.
The proposal has fiscal implications for other City departments, including the offices of the Controller and
the City Attorney The proposal provides that the Commission may request the assistance of the Controller
in the review process and requires the Controller to disburse payments to candidates from the Fund The
proposal also provides that the Controller assist in conducting audits of all candidates who receive public
financing The City Attorney's Office, which is the legal advisor to the Ethics Commission, would assist
15
Attachment II
Alan Gibson Page 3 of 3
Office of the Budget Analyst
April 6, 2000
Page 3
the Commission staff in drafting implementing regulations Finally, there may be additional costs to the
Department of Telecommunications and Information Services with respect to any website administration
provided to the Ethics Commission or for development of online filing for public finance information
I hope you find this memo responsive to your inquiries If you have questions, or need additional
information, please contact me at (415) ^^4-V? 1
1 I HICS-01SVR DATA\SHARED\Public Finance Budget AmlyH HudgelAnalysO doc
16
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 2 -File 99-2317
Department: Superior Court
Item: Ordinance amending Article XIII, Chapter 10, Part
I of the San Francisco Municipal Code
(Administrative Code) by adding Section 10.117-
125 to impose a surcharge of $5 for the filing in
Superior Court of specified initial pleadings and to
appropriate the surcharge to pay costs, excluding
capital outlay, related to the maintenance of
Children's Waiting Rooms at the Hall of Justice
and Civic Center Courthouse.
Description: California Standards of Judicial Administration
require that each court endeavor to provide a
supervised children's waiting room in courthouses
that are open during normal court hours. To help
defray the cost of operating these children's waiting
rooms, in 1999, the California Legislature enacted
Assembly Bill 177, which was codified as California
Government Code Section 26826.3 to enable Boards
of Supervisors to impose surcharges on the initial
filings of specified Superior Court pleadings to fund
the operation and maintenance of such children's
waiting rooms.
The proposed ordinance would impose a $5
surcharge on the initial filings of pleadings in
specified Superior Court cases to fund the operation
and maintenance of existing Children's Waiting
Rooms in the Hall of Justice and the Civic Center
Courthouse. The proposed ordinance would also
permit such funds to be used for Children's Waiting
Rooms in any other San Francisco courthouse,
which may be developed in the future.
The proposed ordinance would also establish a
Courthouse Children's Waiting Rooms Special
Fund for deposit of the surcharges collected. The
County Clerk would be responsible for remitting
the $5 surcharges to the Controller's Office on a
monthly basis, and the Controller would be
responsible for maintaining and recording all
receipts and expenditures from this Fund. The
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
17
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Fund could be used to pay any costs, excluding
capital, related to the Children's Waiting Rooms.
Such expenditures, although limited for use for the
Children's Waiting Rooms, would be determined by
the Chief Executive Officer of the Court, in
consultation with the Presiding Judge of the Court,
the Supervising Judge of the Unified Family Court,
and the provider, which is currently the Northern
California Service League, a non-profit
organization that operates the Children's Waiting
Rooms. All of such expenditures would be subject to
appropriation approval by the Board of
Supervisors, according to Ms. Amy Ackerman of the
City Attorney's Ofl
In addition to the surcharge revenues to be
deposited to the Courthouse Children's Waiting
Room Special Fund, under the proposed ordinance,
all donations of cash and noncash gifts for these
Children's Waiting Rooms would be accepted and
deposited in the proposed new Courthouse
Children's Waiting Room Special Fund. Ms. Amy
A< kerman of the City Attorney's < Hike advises that
noncash gifts (i.e., furnishings, books, etc.) would
be accepted and placed in the Children's Waiting
Room. In addition, all interest earned on the Fund
would be credited to the Fund and any balance
remaining in the Fund at the close of any fiscal
year will be automatically carried forward. Ms.
Ackerman advises that all gifts of cash and interest
earnings would be subject to the Board of
Supervisors appropriation approval.
Comments: 1. According to Mr. Neal Taniguichi of the Superior
Court, the costs to design and construct the
Children's Waiting Room at the Civic Center
Courthouse were included in the overall costs of
constructing the new Courthouse, which was
completed in January of 1998. Mr. Taniguichi
advises that the costs to design and construct the
Children's Waiting Room at the Hall of Justice,
which was completed in 1991, was paid for with
private and local grant funds.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
18
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. In accordance with the proposed ordinance, the
$5 surcharge would be imposed for the filing in
Superior Court of (1) a complaint, petition, or other
first paper in a civil or probate action of special
proceeding, (2) a first paper on behalf of any
defendant, respondent, intervenor, or adverse
party, (3) a motion for change of venue from
another court or (4) a first paper on behalf of any
party in a proceeding under Section 98.2 of the
California Labor Code. The proposed ordinance also
states that no party will be required to pay the $5
surcharge more than once in any action.
3. According to Mr. Taniguichi, $5 is the maximum
surcharge fee allowed by the recent State law. Mr.
Taniguichi advises that the Superior Court
estimates that the proposed $5 surcharge will
result in approximately $188,000 annually in
revenues, based on the projected 37,600 annual
filings in the Superior Court. Mr. Taniguichi
reports that, if the proposed ordinance is approved,
the Court would begin to impose the proposed $5
surcharge fee as soon as possible and would include
such revenues, and the applicable requested
expenditures in the Superior Court's FY 2000-01
budget. Such expenditures would then be subject to
review and appropriation approval by the Board of
Supervisors.
4. Mr. Taniguichi advises that the Superior Court
currently has a contract with the Northern
California Service League, a non-profit
organization to operate the two Children's Waiting
Rooms, one in the Hall of Justice and one in the
Civic Center Courthouse. According to Mr.
Taniguichi, the current contract with the Northern
California Service League is for $121,848 annually
to operate both of the Children's Waiting Rooms.
Mr. Taniguichi advises that these contract costs of
$121,848 are currently paid by the City's General
Fund.
5. Therefore, Mr. Taniguichi advises that if the
proposed ordinance is approved, and the $5
surcharge is imposed, it should provide a
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
19
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
permanent reliable funding source for
Children's Waiting Room operations and
maintenance. As a result, Mr. Taniguichi further
advises that the City's General Fund would no
longer be needed to support this Court operation,
resulting in a direct savings to the City's General
Fund of approximately $122,000 annually.
However, if the proposed ordinance is approved, all
of the costs for the funding for the Children's
Waiting Rooms must be absorbed by only those
persons who file the applicable papers with the
Superior Court as described in Comment No. 2
above. However, Mr. Taniguichi advises that the
Judge in the Superior Court can waive these filing
for indigent cases.
6. Ms. Shirley Melnicoe, the Executive Director of
the Northern California Service League provided
the budget, contained in the Attachment, • which
identifies the uses of the existing $121,848 annual
budget. Ms. Melnicoe advises that there is one full-
time Coordinator and two part-time Assistant
employees at the Civic Center Children's Waiting
Room and one full-time Coordinator and one full-
time Assistant employee at the Hall of Justice. Ms.
Melnicoe reports that the Children's Waiting
Rooms are open for use between the hours of 8:30
am to 12pm. and 1pm to 4:30pm on days that the
Court is in session. According to Ms. Melnicoe, the
Children's Waiting Rooms are available for use by
persons using the courts (such as family court
clients, criminal defendants and jurors), at no
charge, but are not available as a permanent
childcare facility for court employees.
7. The Budget Analyst notes that the proposed $5
surcharge would generate an estimated $188,000
annually. However, as noted above, the costs to
maintain and operate the Children's Waiting
Rooms is currently $121,848. Since the proposed (a)
surcharge revenues can only be used to operate and
maintain the Children's Waiting Rooms in the two
Courthouses currently, (b) the estimated costs to
operate such Children's Waiting Rooms is currently
$121,848 and (c) a $4 surcharge, based on the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
20
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
projected 37,600 annual filings, would generate an
estimated $150,400 annually, the Budget Analyst
recommends that the proposed surcharge be
reduced by $1, from $5 to $4.
Recommendations: Amend the proposed ordinance to reduce the
proposed surcharge from $5 to $4. Approval of the
proposed ordinance, as amended, is a pohcj T matter
for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Feb 16 00 10:39a
Cal. Service League
1415 1 863- 1 882
P- 2
Attachment
I. Contract Budget
Line Item
Personnel
Program Coordinator
Assistant (I Fit)
Executive Director (5%, each)
Fringe Benefits
Total Personnel
Operating Expenses
Insurance
Telephone
Materials and Supplies
Maintenance
Reproduction
Total Operating Expenses
TOTAL Waiting Room Expenses
Appendix B.
Budget and Calculation of Chi
irges
Hall of Justice
C\
vie Center
Total
$26,000
18.720
2.600
$26,000
18,720
2.600
$52,000
37.440
5,200
9.464
9464
18,928
S56.784
$56,784
$113,568
$1,200
600
1.200
900
240
$1,200
600
1.200
900
240
$2,400
1.200
2.400
1,800
480
S4.I40
$4,140
$8,280
$60.<>24
S60.924
S121.S48
Calculation of Charges
Budget Total $121,848
Monthly payment to contractor (Budget total / 12) $10,154
P500 (7-99)
PageB-1
22
Memo to Finance Committee and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 3 - File 00-0483
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH)
Department of Real Estate (DRE)
Item: Resolution authorizing a new lease agreement at 238 Eddy
Street (Windsor Hotel) for the Department of Public
Health's SSI Evaluation Program.
Location: The proposed lease is for the rental of the ground floor, and
portions of the basement and mezzanine areas of the
Windsor Hotel at 238 Eddy Street, a City leased residential
hotel.
Purpose of Lease:
To provide a central location for the DPH staff responsible
for (a) determining eligibility of disabled persons and other
adults for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits,
and (b) assisting potential recipients to complete the
documentation required to receive SSI benefits.
Lessor:
Lessee:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
238 Windsor Associates.
City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through
the Department of Public Health.
5,657 square feet at a monthly rental rate of $3,500
(approximately $0.62 per square foot) in Year One of the
subject lease.
$42,000 in Year One of the proposed lease, increasing to
$59,779 in Year Ten of the lease.
Annual Percentage
Rent Increases:
Four percent
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
23
Memo to Finance Committee and Labor Committ.'i-
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Utilities and:
Janitorial Services:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Comments:
Utilities will be provided by the City and janitorial services
will be paid by the City under contract with the John
Stewart Company.
Ten Years (May 1, 2000 to April 30, 2010).
None
$10,400 including $7,000 for rent budgeted m (Ik- FY 1999-
2000 DPH General Fund budget for two months, May to
June of 2000, in addition to utilities and janitorial services.
Funding for future years will be requested in the DPH's
Tom Waddell Health Center's budget.
The proposed resolution would authorize a new ten
lease of 5,657 square fe< I "f space at the Windsor Hotel at
238 Eddy Street from 238 Windsor Associates to provide a
central location for DPH staff to determine whether
disabled and other adults are eligible for monthly SSI
payments. The primary mission of the SSI Evaluation
Program is to assist disabled and other adults to receive
SSI benefits. DPH proposes to relocate the program to
improve accessibilm ices for SSI clients.
1. According to Ms. Daisy Leyva of DPH, under the current
DPH Housing Services residential lease agreement with
the Windsor Hotel, the City leases 45,800 square feet at a
monthly rate of $31,000 (approximately $0.68 per square
foot). The Windsor Hotel has been leased as a residential
Hotel since May 1999. There are 94 residential units in the
Windsor Hotel of which (a) 75 of the units are occupied by
persons who have been referred by the Department of
Human Service (DHS) or DPH. and (b) 19 units are
occupied by tenants under prior lease agreements.
2. The City has operated the residential portion of the
Windsor Hotel under lease since May of 1999.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2k
Memo to Finance Committee and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
3. DPH's SSI Evaluation Program is currently managed by
a staff of 16 and temporarily located at the Department of
Human Services facility at 1235 Mission Street which
occupies 400 square feet of dedicated space. Staff also use
shared space at that location. According to Ms. Leyva, this
proposed lease would allow the 16 staff of the SSI
Evaluation Program to relocate from the DHS facility on
Mission Street to the Windsor Hotel. In addition, four staff
from DPH's Homeless Death Prevention Program would
also relocate from their current location at the Tom
Waddell Health Center at 50 Ivy Street into the proposed
office space. The new proposed location would therefore
accommodate a total staff of 20 in 5,657 square feet.
Therefore, the Windsor Hotel facility would provide the SSI
Evaluation Program with dedicated space of 5,257 square
feet more than the space available at 1235 Mission Street.
Ms. Leyva notes that the additional 5,257 square feet of
space at the Windsor Hotel would also provide private office
space for consultation with clients, as well as general office
space and conference rooms.
4. According to Ms. Leyva, if the SSI Evaluation Program
relocates to the Windsor Hotel under the proposed lease,
the Department of Human Services would use the 400
square feet of vacated space at the 1235 Mission Street
facility for additional space for DHS caseworkers.
5. The Homeless Death Prevention Program occupies
approximately 300 square feet of space at the Tom Waddell
Health Center. According to Ms. Leyva, if the Homeless
Death Prevention unit relocates to the Windsor Hotel under
this proposed lease, it would relieve congestion at the Tom
Waddell Health Center.
6. According to Ms Leyva, if the City enters into the
proposed lease, DPH would expend $140,000 to build
general office space and private offices for consultations.
DPH reports that funds are available in their FY 1999 -
2000 budget.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
25
Memo to Finance Committee and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
7. Mr. Mark Zuffo, of the Department of Real Estate, has
stated that the proposed lease represents fair market rental
value.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
26
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 4 - File 00-0486
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Grant Period:
Description:
REVISED 4/7/00
Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD)
Resolution approving the FY 2000-2001 Emergency Shelter
Grants Program and expenditure schedule and authorizing the
Mayor, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to
apply for, accept, and expend a $890,000 entitlement under the
Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
$890,000
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001
The HUD Emergency Shelter Grants Program was first
established under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act in July of 1987. The program is designed to assist in (a)
improving the quality of existing emergency shelters for the
homeless, (b) making available additional emergency shelters,
and (c) meeting the costs of operating emergency shelters. The
goal of the program is to provide certain essential social services
to homeless individuals so that those persons have access to the
support services needed to improve their situations.
The Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) is
responsible for administering and monitoring the Emergency
Shelter Grants Program (ESGP). Funds from the ESGP are
budgeted under five categories, three program categories
(Essential and Social Services, Maintenance and Operating
Expenses, and Homeless Prevention Services) and two other
categories (MOCD Administration and an Emergency Shelter
Grants Pool). MOCD proposes to allocate grant funds in the
amount of $890,000 from the FY 2000-2001 ESGP grant (which is
$1,000 less than the 1999 ESGP allocation of $891,000) to 14
projects in the three program categories noted above, to
administrative costs, and to the Emergency Shelter Grants Pool.
Approval of the proposed resolution would (a) authorize the
MOCD to accept and expend the FY 2000-2001 Emergency
Shelter Grant and (b) approve the FY 2000-2001 Emergency
Shelter Grants Program and expenditure schedule.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
The proposed summary budget for the ESGP allocation of
$890,000 is as follows:
Increase/
Proposed
(Decrease)
FY 1999-
FY 2000-
from FY
Program
2000
2001
1999-2000
Budget
Budget
Budget
American Red Cross
$68,000
$68,000
$
Asian Women's Shelter
56,000
56,000
-
Catholic Charities
25,000
25,000
-
Compass Community Services
50,000
50,000
-
Dolores Street Community Services
11,000
48,000
7,000
Episcopal Community Services
40,000
40,000
-
Friendship House Association
36,900
36,900
-
Hamilton Family Center, Inc.
43,000
50,000
7,000
La Casa de las Madres
77,300
77,300
-
Larkin Street Youth Center
54,000
54,000
-
Metropolitan Community Foundation
17.000
17.000
St. Vincent de Paul Society
20,000
20,000
-
Swords to Plowshares
38,600
38,600
-
United Council of Human Services
96,000
96,000
-
Emergency Shelter Pool
120,350
138,700
18,350
MOCD Administration (5%)
14,500
44,500
-
Programs Not Funded in FY 2000-2001
80.350
.
(80.350)
Total
$891,000
$890,000
($1,000)
The Attachment, provided by MOCD, contains the ESGP FY"
1999-2000 budget and FY 2000-2001 proposed budget, and a list,
including descriptions, of the above programs. Of the programs
noted above, one program is new and 3 have increased funding
from the FY* 1999-2000 ESGP budget, for a total of increased
funding of $79,350. Additionally, programs funded in FY 1999-
2000, totaling $80,350. were not funded in FY 2000-2001. The
total ESGP allocation in FY' 2000-2001 of $890,000 is $1,000 less
than the FY 1999-2000 allocation of $891,000.
The Budget Analyst has reviewed budgets for four programs with
increased funding. (Hamilton Family Center, Dolores Street
Community Services, the Metropolitan Community Foundation,
and the Emergency Shelter Pool). These programs are discussed
below.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Hamilton Family Center, Inc. $50,000
The proposed budget of $50,000 for Hamilton Family Center, Inc.
is $7,000 or 16.3 percent more than the FY 1999-2000 allocation
of $43,000. According to Mr. Jon Pon, the proposed allocation
would be used for rent at 1525 Waller Street. Mr. Pon states that
the rent paid by Hamilton Family Center at 1525 Waller Street
is currently $74,784 annually (9,750 square feet at $0.64 per
square foot per month), and that, on July 1, 2000, the rent will
increase to $80,772, an annual rent increase of $5,988 or 8
percent
Dolores Street Community Services $48,000
According to Mr. Pon, $48,000 has been allocated to Dolores
Street Community Services in FY 2000-2001, which is $7,000, or
17 percent, more than the FY 1999-2000 allocation of $41,000.
Mr. Pon states that increased funds in the amount of $7,000
would be used to partially fund the program director and case
manager positions in the employment advocacy program for
Latino working homeless. 1
Metropolitan Community Foundation $47,000
The Board of Supervisors approved allocation of $23,416 of
Emergency Shelter Pool funds in December of 1999 for the
Metropolitan Community Foundation's - Mission High Shower
Project for homeless persons (File 99-2144). In FY 2000-2001,
MOCD recommends an allocation of $47,000 to the Metropolitan
Community Foundation for the continuation and expansion of
Mission High School Shower Project. The Mission High School
Shower Project is funded by private and non-City donations and
grants, as well as the subject $47,000 in ESGP monies, for a total
budget of $199,728. The Budget Analyst has reviewed details for
the proposed budget and finds them to be reasonable.
Emergency Shelter Pool $138,700
MOCD has proposed allocating $138,700 in ESGP funds to the
Emergency Shelter Pool in FY 2000-2001, which is $18,350 or 15
percent more than the $120,350 allocated in FY 1999-2000. Mr.
Pon states that the increased funds are necessary because the
1 The Dolores Street Community Services program's proposed FY 2000-2001 budget has budgeted
for 1.0 FTE Case Manager at $30,000 annually and 1.0 FTE Program Director at $37,000 annually.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
29
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Required Match:
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
Recommendations:
City anticipates a reduction in other Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act funds in FY 2000-2001 compared to FY
1999-2000. 2 The increased funds in the Emergency Shelter Pool
would be used to provide emergency homeless shelter services in
the winter of 2000-2001. The Budget Analyst recommends
placing Emergency Shelter Pool funds in the amount of $138,700
on reserve, pending submission of a program plan and budget.
HUD requires one-to-one matching funds, totaling $890,000, for
the ESGP funds. According to Ms. Julie Brenman of DHS, such
matching funds have been budgeted in the proposed FY 2000-
2001 DHS budget.
None provided by the ESGP grant.
1 As noted above, the subject ESGP grant would allocate funds
to (a) 14 nonprofit agencies, (b) to administrative costs and (c) to
the Emergency Shelter Pool. The Budget Analyst recommends
approval of existing programs with the *;ime funding level as the
prior year. Approval of programs with increased funding is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the
Budget Analyst recommends placing S 138.700 allocated to the
Emergency Shelter Pool on reserve, pending submission of a
program plan and budget details.
2. The MOCD has prepared a Disability Access Checklist, which
is on file with the Clerk of the Board.
1. Approve funding in the amount of $690,300 ($890,000 less new
or increased funding of $61,000, less S138.700 to be placed on
reserve).
2. Place $138,700 for the Emergency Shelter Pool on reserve, as
noted in Comment No. 1.
3. Approval of funding in the amount of $61,000 for expanded
programs including a $7,000 increase for Dolores Street
Community Services, a $7,000 increase for Hamilton Family
Center and $47,000 for the Metropolitan Community Foundation
to expand the Mission High School shower project is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervisors.
1 According to Ms. Julie Brenman of the Department of Human Services (DHS). HUD awarded
$9,000,000 to DHS in Federal McKinney funds in FY 1999-2000. Ms. Brenman states in FY' 2000-
2001, DHS expects to receive S6. 900. 000 in McKinney funds, a S2. 100.000 decrease from FY* 1999-
2000. Such funds are used to provide supportive and transitional housing and social services to
homeless San Franciscans.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
30
Mayors Office of Community Development and Mayor's Office of Housing
Expenditure Schedule 2000 CDBG, ESG and HOME Page 1 of 1 4/5/00 12:43 PM
Attachment
Page 1 of 3
Agency FY99 FY00 RQ FY00 Rec | Chanee
Ernergeecy Shelter Grant :
Amencan Red Cross Bav Area. SF
68,000
58. '."!i.
68,000
Asian Women's Shelter
56.000
56.0110
56.000
Catholic Chanties /St. Joseph's Village
25.000
25.750
25.000
Compass Community Services
50,000
50,000
50,000
Dolores St Community Services/So Van Ness Loc
41.000
4S.000
48.000
7.000
Emergency Shelter Pool
120,350
138.700
18.350
Episcopal Community Services of SF
40,000
45,000
40,000
Friendship House Association of Amencan Indians. Inc.
36.900
63.950
36.900
Hamilton Family Center. Inc
43,001)
50,000
50,000
7,000
La Casa de las Madres
77.300
110.000
77.300
Larkm Street Youth Center
54.000
65,000
54,000
Metropolitan Community Foundation
76JOO
47,000
47,000
MOCD(5%Admin)
44.550
44.772
44.500
-50
St Vincent DePaul Society
20.000
30,000
20.000
Swords to Plowshares
38,600
46,764
38.600
United Council of Human Services (The)
96.000
276.000
96.000
Central City Hospitality House
1 0.300
21,700
-10,300
Volunteer Legal Services Program/ SF Bar Assn
60.000
80.000
-60.000
Asian Law Caucus
30.600
Booker T Washington Community Service Center
[)
50,000
1)
Metropolitan Community Foundation
119.728
Tides Center/SF Eviction Defense Collaborative
30,600
Central Citv HosDitalitv House (Orlando)
10,000
-10.000
Salvation Army (Lifeboat Lodge)
TOTAL EMERGENCY SHELTER
89 1 ,000
1.408.564
890.000
-1. 000
r»»nu»onpn „i,-
31
Emergency Shelter Grant Program
Attachment
Fage 2 of 3
Activity Name and Location
Program Description
Proposed Budget
Emergency Shelter Grants
These projects are directed specifically towards servces extended towards homeless individual and families.
1 . American Red Cross (Bay Area)
85 2nd Street
Provide back rent grants to eligible single non-
disabled adults to prevent eviction
S68.000
2 . Asian Women's Shelter
(Confidential)
Provide shelter and support services to battered
women and their children
S56.000
3. Catholic Chanties
814 Mission Street, Mezzanine
Provide security deposits and other assistance
to those in danger of eviction.
S25.000
4 . Compass Community Services
1 1 1 Tavlor Street
Provide emergency shelter to homeless families S50.000
5 . Dolores Street Community Services
938 Valencia Street
Provide employment development services to
homeless immieram latino men
S4S.000
6. Episcopal Community Services of Sr
201 8th Street
Provide shelter services, comprehensive case
management and on-site job counseling
S40.000
7. Friendship House Association of American Indians Provide shelter to homeless American Indian
80 Julian Avenue adul15 s e; * in ? treatment and counseling for
alcohol/subsianc; aBtrse addictions
S36.900
S. Hamilton Family Center. Inc
1525 Waller Street
Provide emergency shelter :o homeless fan: S50.000
32
Section CI
Attachment
Page 3 of 3
Emergency Shelter Grant Program
Acttvitv Name and Location
Program Description
Proposed Budget
9 . La Casa de las Madres
(Confidential)
Provide shelter and 24-hour bilingual crisis
line, drop-in program, and counseling services
to bartered women and their children
S77.300
10. Larkin Street Youth Center
538 Central Avenue
Provide emergency shelter and related services S54.000
to runaway vouth aaes 12-17
1 1 . Metropolitan Community Foundation
3750 18th Street
Provide showers and personal hygiene services
as pan of Mission High School Shower Project
to the homeless
S47.000
12. St. Vincent de Paul Society of SF
(Confidential)
Provide emergency shelter for battered women
and their children
S20.000
1 3 . Swords to Plowshares
1063 Market Street
Provide case management assistance to
homeless and at-risk veterans to access and
protect disability income and medical benefits
S38.600
14. United Council of Human Services
2111 Jennings Street
Provide services to homeless or at-risk of
becoming homeless, including pantry proeram,
food bag program, hot meal program, clothing
bank, life skills training, crisis counseling and
coordinated referrals
S96.000
Emergency Shelter Pool
c.o MOCD
Provide emergency funding for homeless
projects throughout the year
5133.^00
16. MOCD/ESG Administration
c/o MOCD
Administration of ESG Program
S44.500
GRAND TOTAL EMERGENCY SHELTER PROGRAM S890.000
Section C2
33
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 5 - File 00-0487
Department:
Item:
Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH)
Resolution (a) authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept
and administer a grant from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development for a total amount not to
exceed $7,] 1.5,000 for the Home Program authorized under
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990,
Public Law Number 101-625, and (b) approving the Home
Program description, as described m the 2000 Action Plan
for San Francisco's Consolidated Plan. This resolution
states that indirect costs associated with the acceptance of
these grant funds will be paid by Community Development
Block Grant funds.
Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Description:
Not to exceed $7,115,000
July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)
Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program
The HOME Program is authorized under Title II of the
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (Public Law
Number 101-625). The Act provides fund? for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of privately-
owned affordable housing.
In August of 1994, HUD issued regulations requiring that a
Consolidated Plan be developed for (a) the HOME ProgTam,
(b) the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program, and (c) the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program. In response. MOH has
developed a "Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for the City and
Countv of San Francisco. Draft for Public Review" 1 . The
1 The "Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Draft for Public
Renew", dated March 30, 2000. contains the City's plans and programs for privately-owned housing,
totaling $82,388,311. as shown on the following page. The final 2000 Action Plan will reflect the
program funding requests approved by the Board of Supervisors in this subject HOME Program
legislation, and legislation being considered by the Finance and Labor Committee (Files 00-0486 and
00-0488).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
34
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
MOH advises that the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan, when
finalized to reflect the program funding to be approved by
the Board of Supervisors for the three programs noted
above, will function as the MOH grant application for
HOME program funding from HUD. MOH and the Mayor's
Office of Community Development (MOCD) must submit
the 2000 Action Plan to HUD by May 15, 2000. According
to the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for privately owned
housing development and administrative costs, the MOH
anticipates receiving $7,115,000, which is $38,000 or 0.5
percent more than the 1999 allocation of $7,077,000.
Projected funds for the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for
privately owned housing developments in San Francisco
totals $ 82,294,835, including $6,197,376 of the proposed
$7,115,000 HOME grant allocation 2 and various other
sources of funding, as follows:
Funding Source
Amount
Federal Funds
HOME
$6,197,376
CDBG 3
5,406,501
CDBG Program Income
240,000
HOPWA
185.508
Subtotal, Federal Funds
$12,029,385
Local Sources
Hotel Tax Fund
4,900,000
Citywide Tax Increment (T.I.)
19,275,000
SOMA T.I.
10,000,000
Western Addition T.I.
12,275,000
Mission Bav
4,000,000
Bonds: Development Account
16,842,750
Bonds: Down-payment
Assistance Account
2,969.700
Subtotal, Local Funds
$70,262,450
Total
$82,291,835
2 The funding sources noted above are for capital projects only. Of the proposed HOME grant,
totaling $7,115,000, $6,197,376 is designated for capital projects (including acquisition and
rehabilitation and new housing construction), $56,474 is designated for tenant rental assistance, and
$861,150 is designated for HOME administrative costs.
3 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are the subject of File 00-0488.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
35
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
REVISED 4/7/00
Item 5 - File 00-0487
The proposed total 2000 HOME Program funds of
$7,115,000 represents approximately 8.6 percent of the
total $ 82,291,835 in projected funds for privately owned
housing development in San Francisco.
Procedures for allocating HOME Program funds were
approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 1992
(File 68-92-4.1) and revised in February of 1994 (File 68-94-
7). These procedures outlined broad criteria and the
process for allocating the HOME Program funds, including
notification procedures to interested parties on the
availability of housing funds, evaluation of funding
proposals, and criteria for underwriting housing loans.
Projects eligible for HOME funding are defined as follows:
instruction of new housing units or rehabilitation of
existing housing units, which will be owned and
managed by the applicant for HOME funding, and
which will be occupied by households with incomes that
do not exceed 60 percent of the median income
established by HUD; or
(b) First-time home ownership assistance for low-income
persons with household incomes that do not exceed 80
percent of the median income established by HUD.
H( >ME regulations require that a minimum of 15 percent of
the City's proposed FY 2000-2001 HOME allocation of
$7,115,000, or $1,067,250, be reserved for housing
developed, sponsored or owned by non-profit Community
Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). According
to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH, nearly all of San Francisco's
affordable housing development efforts in recent years have
been conducted in collaboration with local community-
based non-profit housing development corporations, several
of which have satisfied HUD requirements to qualify - as
CHDOs. CHDOs are expected to continue performing the
roles that non-profit housing development corporations
have traditionally performed in San Francisco, including
acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings,
acquisition of sites and development of new housing, and
ownership and management of subsidized developments
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
The proposed summary budget for the subject HOME
Investment Partnership Program grant is as follows:
Increase/
FY 1999-2000 FY 2000-2001 (Decrease) in
Program Budget Budget FY 2000-2001
Acquisition and rehabilitation of
housing units for low-income
households
• Per unit cost greater than $25,000
• Per unit cost less than $25,000
Subtotal, Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
$2,897,288
1.500.000
$4,397,288
$2,339,249
1.500.000
$3,839,249
($558,039)
($558,039)
New housing construction
$1,824,109
$2,358,127
$534,018
Tenant-based housing assistance
$36,474
$56,474
S20,000
Administrative Costs
Community Housing Corporation
MOH HOME Program
Other administrative costs
Subtotal, AdministrativeCosts
150.000
488,134
182.995
$821,129
150,000
557,571
153.579
$861,150
69,437
(29.416)
$40,021
Total
$7,079,000
$7,115,000
$36,000
Required Match:
Comments:
$1,778,750 or 25 percent of HOME grant funds. Mr.
LaTorre states that matching funds are available from the
Home Tax Fund, identified as a local funding source on the
previous page. Such matching funds would be part of the
total funding of $82,291,835 for privately owned housing
developments, identified by the Preliminarj' 2000 Action
Plan for the City and County of San Francisco.
1. According to Mr. LaTorre, MOH will issue "Notices of
Funding Availability" to nonprofit developers for (a)
development of supportive housing 4 units ($2,339,249), and
(b) preservation of existing nonprofit-owned housing
($1,500,000). Additionally, $2,358,127 will be allocated to
Bridge Housing Corporation, a nonprofit developer, for an
existing project to construct new family rental housing at 1
Church Street. This total funding of $6,197,376 represents
87.1 percent of the $7,115,000 in HOME funding.
Supportive housing provides necessary social services as well as housing to low-income residents.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
37
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit-
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. Mr. La Torre states that tenant-based housing assistance
is provided by Catholic Charities Homeless Prevention
Program to assist low-income tenants in avoiding eviction.
3. As shown in the table abov>\ total administrative com- in
the proposed FY 2000-2001 HOME Investment Partnership
Program are $861,150, which is $40,021 or 4.9 percent
more than total administrative costs in the FY" 1999-2000
budget of $821,129 ($150,000 plus $488. 134 plus $182,995).
The FY 2000-2001 MOH HOME program administration
costs of $557,571 are $69,437 or 14.2 percent more than the
FY 1999-2000 allocation of $488,134. According to Mr.
Roger Sanders of NfOCD, the increased HOME program
administration costs are due to increased salary costs for
the existing 5.05 program FTES. including negotiated
salary increases, salary step increases, and the associated
increase in fringe benefits. The Attachment, provided by
Mr. Sanders, contains the budget details for the proposed
FY 2000-2001 HOME administrative budget. The Budget
Analyst has reviewed the FY 1999-2000 and FY 2000-2001
HOME administrative bud§
4. Mr. LaTorre states that $150,000 in administrative costs
would be allocated to the Community Housing Corporation,
which is unchanged from the amount allocated in FY 1999-
2000. Of the $150,000. the Chinese Community Housing
Corporation. the Mission Housing Development
Corporation. and the Tenderloin Neighborhood
Development Corporation would each be allocated S50.000.
5. Section l.C of MOH Criteria and Procedures for
allocating HOME Program funds requires that the Director
of MOH submit an Annual Report to the Board of
Supervisors by March 31 of each year for the preceding
calendar year, providing an accounting of all HOME
program funds received by the City and how the funds were
expended. According to Mr. LaTorre. the most recent
Annual Report, for calendar year 1999. is in final editing
and will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors by April
7. 2000.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
38
Attachment
Mayor's Office of Housing HOME Administrative Expenditure Schedule 2000
Psm
Grant
Mat
Hi
Line Item
Description
St
Sub-Obj
Admin
MOHM00
21H
Class
Title
FTE
MOHM00
21H
\
1367
Special Assistant \T1I
Alv.'Arin
20
S 9.892
MOHM00
21H
1369
Special .Assistant X
250
S 144.430
MOHM00
21H
1370
Special Assistant XI
0.50
S 28.071
MOHM00
21H
1371
Special Assistant XIV
050
S 31.711
MOHM00
21H
1374
Special Assistant XII
0.50
S 43.117
MOHM00
21H
1377
Special Assistant Program Development
0.10
S 10.489
MOHM00
21H
9774
Sr Community Development Specialist
0.75
S 48.507
MOHMOO
21H
Personnel
Labor Costs
5 05
S 516.217
MOHMOO
21H
Personnel
Labor Costs Fnnees a 11
S 69.568
MOHMOO
21H
Personnel
Labor Costs Total
S 385.785
MOHMOO
2IH
Personel
SaJarv Savings 2.05
S (19.2891
21H
Personel
Negotiated Increases 'a .04
S 15.431
MOHMOO
21H
Conferences &. Travel
Conference Travel
S
MOHMOO
21H
Dravaae-Treight
File Safe
S 500
MOHMOO
2IH
Equipment
Lease Photocopier
S 5.000
MOHMOO
21H
Equipment
Maintenance & Repair
s
MOHMOO
21H
Equipment
Auto Fuel & Maintenance
s
MOHMOO
21H
Legal & Displa\ Advertising
S :
MOHMOO
21H
Memberships
S 1.500
MOHMOO
21H
Postage
S 2.500
MOHMOO
2IH
Pnntins
S 5.000
M' 1HM0O
21H
Rental Space
25 Van Ness Lease
S "0.644
MOHMOO
21H
Supplies
Office Supplies
S 5.000
MOHMOO
21H
Telecommunications
Telephone Services
S 5.000
MOHMOO
21H
Training
S 2.500
MOHMOO
21H
TOTAL
S 487,571
MOHMOO
21H
Professional Services
Environmental Review
S 15.000
MOHMOO
21H
Professional Services
Gt\ Planning
S 10.000
MOHMOO
21H
Professional Services
Gtv Attorney
S 25.000
MOHM01
21H
Professional Services
Controller
S 10.000
MOHMOO
21H
Professional Services
Real Estate
MOHMOO
2IH
Professional Services
ADA
Mi iHM'.if;
21H
Professional Services
Other
S 10.000
\]> iHMOfi
2!H
Total HOME
S 55-.571
MOH 2000 Budget Review
39
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 6 -File 00-0488
Department:
Mayor's Office of Community Development
(MOCD)
Item:
Resolution approving the 2000 Community
Development Program authorizing the Mayor, on
behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to
accept and expend the City's 2000 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Lilian
Development, and program income generated by
the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to
$33,734,275 which include indirect costs of
$160,000; and approving expenditure schedul
recipient departments and agencies for in d
Description:
in the Budget Analv rate report of
April 12, 2000 on the Mayor's proposed 2000
Community Development Program.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
40
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 7 - File 00-0521
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Port
Hearing requesting the release of reserves in the amount
of $235,343 to fund the completion of the Hyde Street
Fishing Harbor Project.
$235,343
California Department of Boating and
(CDBW), in the form of loan proceeds
Waterways
In 1988, the Port began a project to revitalize commercial
fishing at Fisherman's Wharf. This project included,
among other projects, the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor
Project, which consisted of a waterside vessel berthing
facility and associated improvements to nearby land
In May of 1988 the Board of Supervisors approved a
request by the Port to apply for and accept loan funds in
the amount of $3,000,000 from the California Department
of Boating and Waterways (CDBW) to fund the Hyde
Street Fishing Harbor Project (Resolution 374-88). In
April of 1994 the Board of Supervisors approved a
resolution to increase the amount of the loan by $500,000,
to a total loan amount of $3,500,000 (Resolution 350-94).
In January of 1998, the Board of Supervisors
appropriated the $3,500,000 in loan proceeds for the
Phase 1 Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project. Of the
$3,500,000 amount appropriated, $3,229,700 was placed
on reserve, pending confirmation of contractor selection
and submission of budget details (Ordinance No. 40-98).
Since the initial placement of the $3,229,700 on reserve,
the Finance and Labor Committee has approved release of
funds for the project three times: for design costs,
dredging and disposal work, and for Phase 1 demolition
and construction work, respectively (for further details,
see Comment No. 1). Thus far, total reserve funds of
$2,994,357 have been released by the Finance Committee,
leaving a balance of $235,343 remaining on reserve.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
41
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
In addition to the remaining $235,343 on reserve for the
Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project, the Port has also
appropriated an additional $2,075,228 for Phase 2 of the
project. The other sources of funding for Phase 2 of the
project are CDBW grant funds (approved by the Board of
Supervisors in FY 1998-99 - Resolution 552-98) in the
amount of $86,500 and Port Capital Budget funds
approved in the FY 1998-99 Port budget in the amount of
$1,988,728 (for a total of $2,075,228).
The Port now requests that the $235,343 balance in
CDBW loan funds remaining on reserve for the Hyde
Street Pishing Harbor Project be released as additional
funding for Phase 2. If this request is approved, total
funds appropriated for Phase 2 would be $2,310." 71
($2,075,228 in previously appropriated funds for Phase 2
of the projeel plus the $235,343 remaining reserved funds
from Phase 1 of the project). Specifically, Phase 2 of the
Projeel would include construction of new utilities along
Hyde Alley, partial demolition of the 490 Jefferson St.
building to accommodate a new 24 car parking lot, a i
parking Lot at the North end of Hyde Alley to
accommodate 21 parking stalls, new bathrooms and a
utility and storage facility located within the existing blue
shed building on Hyde Alley, and public and disability
access from Jefferson Street to the public access area at
the North end of Hvde Alley.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
42
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
A summary budget for the proposed Phase 2 of the Hyde
Street Fishing Harbor project is as follows:
Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project
Demolition/Asbestos removal & disposal
$188,419
Paving parking lots and pedestrian areas
150,000
Storm drain work
250,000
Gas and electrical service
265,000
Fuel pier bilge pump-out and lines
100,000
Jefferson St. building & loading dock,
Extend existing wood pier
200,000
Concrete
400,000
Aluminum railing, chain link fence, and
70,000
Gate structure
Signage
70,000
Trench shoring to provide safety and temporary
Support
5,000
Restroom, utility rooms, and storage facility
200,000
Pilings
135,100
Parking area A/Lot B
67,000
Total Bid Price
$2,100,519
10% contingency reserve
210.052
Total Project Budget*
$2,310,571
* See comment No. 4.
Comments:
1. The table on the following page is a summary of prior
actions by the Board of Supervisors on the $3.5 million in
CDBW loans previously appropriated to the Port in
January of 1998 for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor
Project, including the proposed release of $235,343 in
reserved funds:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
A3
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
January 1998
July 1998
October 1999
February 2000
April 2000
$3,500,000 in Funds Appropriated,
with $3,229,700 Placed on Reserve
Release of Reserved Funds
For Design Costs
Release of Reserved Funds
For Pre-Construction Dredging
and Disposal Work
Release of Reserved Funds for
Demolition and Construction
Work (Phase 1)
Proposed Su bjcct Release of
Reseries (Phase 2)
Balance of Funds that iron Id
Remain on Reserrr
$3,229,700
(132,857)
(260,000)
(2,601,500)
(235.343)
$0
2. Ms. Veronica Sanchez of the Port anticipates that
construction of the final stage of the Hyde Street Fishing
Harbor Project will commence April 17, 2000 and be
completed by October 3, 2000.
3. According to Ms. Sanchez, after a competitive selection
process, the Port awarded a construction contract to Proven
Management, Inc., who submitted the lowest responsible
bid of $2,100,519 for the Phase 2 Project, on March 14,
2000. Attachment I to this report, provided by the Port,
contains a list of all firms that submitted bids for this
project and the amount of each bid. The lowest bidder,
Darcy & Harty Construction, submitted a bid of $1,992,500,
which was $108,019 less than the bid by Proven
Management, Inc. However, Ms. Imani Haygood of the Port
reports that, although Darcy & Harty Construction (a
certified LBE contractor) had the lowest total bid. after
MBEAVBE/LBE bid discounts were applied. Proven
Management. Inc. was the lowest bidder. Darcy & Harty
Construction received a 5% bid discount for their LBE
status, whereas Proven Management received a 10% bid
discount on their total bid for their MBE (5%) and LBE
(5%) status.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
44
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
4. The total Phase 2 budget cost of $2,310,571 is $210,052
more than Proven Management's bid of $2,100,519 because
an additional 10 percent would be held as a contingency
reserve.
5. Repayments on the $3.5 million loan proceeds provided
by the California Department of Boating and Waterways,
are to commence on August 1, 2000. According to Ms.
Sanchez, the Port will repay the $3,500,000 CDBW loan
over a period 28 years at an annual interest rate of 4.5
percent. Loan payments will total $222,322.82 per year,
and the Port's payments will ultimately total $6,303,789!
as identified in Attachment II provided by the Port.
Attachment III, provided by the Port, lists all funding
sources the Port plans to use to pay the $3.5 million loan.
6. The Port Commission approved an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the project in December of 1996.
Recommendation: Approve the requested release of reserved funds.
1 This total includes 28 annual payments of $222,322.82 plus a one time post-construction interest
payment of $78,750.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
45
Attachment I
Page 1 ot 2
c o o
ra <" o o
2 O ^ K)
en
UJ
DC
>
CO
CO
a
m
2
a
•a
■LI
c.
O
ex
a
o co
"5 2
c_
u
a m
»sH
u 5 u T>
6> — <1> O
2 o 2" o"
T3
la
■
- 1 5
2, 5
c ■= 3
c <
«- o
5 = =
t/, p
c *- =
> = a
-* » 5
If
• a |
-2 S o
O C
C - C8
. = c
>
c o
c
2 § 1-
— 1 TJ >
: s
5
-r
03
—i
C c D
£ -= °
32?
c c "2
-S £
u —
■ is o ■ .
If £ i
O — o ^
e o 2 —
? II
If
Ifl
46
O o3 o3
rr "5 2
CD : ■ . .
CD „ »-
— ° — _
o
o
X
5
>
US
= uT
_l CO
o
o
d
Cm"
en
tO
o
o
d
en
o
tO
c
d
CD
■c
CM
»
q
d
ID
CM
d
a
d
CD
CM
O
q
d
CM
T
CD"
CM
c
c
Q
L0
UT
O
CO
if?
c
a
q
en
c
d
UT
q
■<r
co_
0"
in
cm"
to
d
in
P3
^r
m
to
q
d
o_
■c
CD
m
cm"
to
O
q
d
o_
CD
in
cm"
to
u
c
CI
c
a
5
c <
§ o
2 u:
Q. CO
o
o
d
o
o
o"
o
to
O
o
d
o
q
o"
o
CNJ
tO .
O
O
d
»
c
d
d
O
O
d
o~
r^
O
q
d
o_
in'
if)
c
c
c
d
CM
«
d
in
CM
W
d
q
d
d
o_
cm"
to
d
CO
c
d
m
0"
CJ
to
N-'
CD
O"
o>
Cj
to
O
m <
js O
a
cu u.
a. en
o
o
d
o
o
o"
CD
CM
to
a
o
d
o
o_
o"
m
CM
to
q
d
in
r-~
«»
d
in
to
q
d
0"
CD
O
O
d
q
cm"
to
c
c
d
rg
O
O
c
a
0"
CO
d
q
tfl
q
d
r--_
ID
cm"
to
d
0"
to
d
in
■<»
cj"
to
d
CD
■c
cm"
to
ui
c
o
o
>.
a
l<
2 °
Q CO
o
o
d
o
o
o"
CD
CNJ
tO
o
o
d
o
o
d
ID
0"
CM
tO
d
d
w
to
d
0"
q
d •
•
d
O
c
D
O
c
in
CJ
d
G
CJ
tfr
q
d
CO
fa>7
d
m
r--"
CM
a>
to
d
in
CD
to
O
O
O-
.0
cJ
CD
CD
W
q
d
r--
CD
cm"
en
q
to
5
c
Q)
o
">
UJ
|3
O CO
o
CM
d
r-~-"
T
CD
tO
o
o
d
o
o
d
CM
tO
O
O
d
CM
to
d
d
q
d
CD
in
d
fc9
D
q
q
*9
6
c
cd
CM
a
O
q
d
co
d
m
CD
q
d
CM
CM
■to
O
q
in
to
CD
CO
cc
-0
m"
to
CM
CO
in
d
CO
o_
cm"
to
2
O
h-
Q.
DC
o
(J)
LU
Q
C.
ts ill g
If III I
<n' Q = "T ? =■
i D ? C J= </>
"O ^ • E f
C _ = 3 O C "
— s •- •£. o
g ° ^ B 5
il8=°«l
1 |lo£ 2 s
2 P c = . *- «>
°- § ■ c. 5 « c.
^ a - 2 m 3 _
i; — ■ <» 3 <n a
- a _ a ~ c a
3 o S m - ? 2
u_ 2b <« tx o = en
"3
o
o .
s . g
JC =
(j ca
o -
a o
15
a
_o a
1 s
a m
a <n
z. ai
3 C3 «
•° a =
S = -5
a .a
"5 m
-j C CD
II
•
5 w
| 1
5
O .X
.
JX ~
B t-
$ • en
• O =
■a ■
- £*
O £ O
a
1 < 1
CJ <
a
-0
c
c
u
^5
5
1 5
C 3
C
5 2
< «
■c
re
~c
0.
c
■o
3
u
a
c
a
?
C
= c
§
CO CO
>.
a
"0
|
>
5
c
a
_c
_
"S
•5
c °
S
£ E
>■
'6
_c
a
a
C
=
E
8
5
E
a
a
a
■
a
■
T1
U.
U
B
t_
a
W
5
c
S
0;
<n in
c
5 c
2 _
-1 X
— c
<
O
t-
■a
c
6
c
e
E
3
a
^5
tr
<
cr
E
m
"c
H
"0
C
c
c5
5
a>
a
ca
01
_c
_>.
c
Q.
O
c
c
a
1-
■c
c
c
c5
■a E
5 2
CO
CO
_J
CO
- 1
1 °?
CO
_J
C5
CO
_)
CO
1 =
13
CJ
tn
-J
Cl
CJ
a.
11
<
Attachment I
Fage 2 ot 2
U
LU
LU
C3
<
2
<
LU
>
O
cr
c
■JO
In
_o
.Q
"co
C
O
CL
o
C3
CD
C3
CT
TO
E
E
Z3
CO
■o
In
■n "O
1 J
ct C -
< <
~ c
I o
§^
o Q
ca
m
47
Attachment II
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
/
February 16, 2000
EmJIie Neumann, Budget Analyst's Office
Veronica Sanchez, Port of San Francisco \/7">
Attachment 3 0>
Release of Reserved Funds Hyde St. Harbor Waterside Improvements
firry 6u«C«-jj
S*i franooeo. C* 941"
Ttiepnon* f.i 27* 0400
F«i«1S2?ite28
Cal Boating Loan Repayment Schedule
Annual
Start of
Interest
Scheduled
Actual
Scheduled
Interest
Principal
Payment Period
Rate
Balance
Balance
Payment
Portion
Portion
1 08/00
4.50%
3,500.000.00
3,500,000.00
(222,322.82)
[1 57,500.00)
(64,822.82)
2 08/01
4.50%
3,435,177.18
3,435.177.18
(222,322.82)
154,582.97)
(67,739.84)
3 08/02
4.50%
3,367,437.00
3.367.437 00
(222,322.82)
151.534.68)
(70,755.14)
4 08/03
4.50%
3,296.64920
3.296.64920
(222,322.82)
148.34921)
r3.973 60)
5 08/04
4 50%
3.222.675.60
3.222,67560
(222,32282)
145,020 40)
(77,302 04)
6 08/05
4.50%
3.145,373.18
3.145,373.18
(222,322.82)
141.541.79)
(80.781.02)
7 08/06
4.50%
3,064,592.16
3,064,592.16
(222,322.82)
137,906.65)
(84,416.17)
8 08/07
4.50%
2,980,175.98
2,980,175.98
(222,322.82)
134.107.92)
(88,214.90)
9 08/08
4.50%
2,891,961.09
2.891.961 09
(222.322.82)
130.13625)
(92,184.57)
10 08/09
4 50%
2.799,776 52
2,799.776 52
(222,322.82)
125,989.94)
(96.332.87)
11 08/10
4.50%
2.703,443.64
2.703,443.64
(222.322.82)
121,654.96)
(100.667.85)
12 08/11
4.50%
2,602,775.79
2,602.775.79
(222,322.82)
117,124.91)
(105,197.91)
13 08/12
4.50%
2,497,577.88
2/97,577 88
(222.322.82)
112.391 00)
(109,931 81)
14 08/13
4.50%
2,387,64607
2.387,646.07
(222.322.82)
107.444.07)
(114.878.74)
15 08/14
4.50%
2.272,767 32
2,272,767.32
(222,322 82)
102,27453)
(120,04829)
16 08/15
4.50%
2.152.719 04
2 152,719.04
(222,322.82)
(96,872.36)
(125,450.53)
17 08/16
4 50%
2.027,268.57
2,027,268.57
(222,322.82)
-7.09)
(131.095.73)
18 08/17
4.50%
1.896,172.84
1,896,172.84
(222,322.82)
(85.327.78)
(136,995.04)
19 08/18
4.50%
1,759,177.80
1,759,177,80
(222,322.32)
(79,163.00)
(143.159.82)
20 08/19
4.50%
',,516,017.93
1.616.017.99
(222,322.82)
(72,720.81)
(149.602.01)
21 08/20
4 50%
1.466.415.98
1.466.415 96
(222.322.82)
(65.988.72)
(156.334. 1C)
22 08/21
4.50%
1 310,081 88
1.310.081.88
(222.322.82)
(58,953.68)
(163,369.13)
23 08/22
4.50%
1,146,712.74
1,146,712.74
(222,322.82)
(51,602.07)
(170,720.74)
24 08/23
4.50%
975,992.00
975,992.00
,222,322.82)
(43,919.64)
(178,403.18)
25 08/24
4.50%
797,588.82
797,588.82
(222.322.82)
(35,891.50)
(186.431.32)
26 08/25
4.50%
611.157 5C
611.157.50
(222.322.82)
" 7 :-G2.09)
(194,820.73)
27 08/26
4.50%
416,335.77
.36.77
(222,322.82)
(13,735.15)
(203,587.66)
28 08/27
4.50%
212,745 11
2^2, "49 11
(222,322.62)
(9,5~ ~
(212.749. 11)
TOTAL INTEREST FROM AMORTIZATION (2.725.038.88)
Interest to August 1. 20G0
(78.750.00)
TOTAL INTEREST COSTS
(2,803,788.88)
Please refer to Attachment 1 (pages 3^) for an itemization of the expected Port revenues to be used over tne
28 year loan term to repay the loan If you need further clarification, please contact Stephanie Downs,
Finance Manager, at 274-0442.
2/16/00 4:11 PM
48
Attachment III
Page 1 of 2
Page 3 of 4
Budget Analyst's Office
Fehruaiy 16,2000
Release of Reserved Funds for Hyde St- Harbor Waterside Improvements
Hyde Street Harbor
First Year Revenne
Monthly Commercial Berths
86,400
Transient Commercial Berths
14,800
Transient Recreational Berths
49,700
Side-Ties
9,792
Transient Fee - Pump-out
6,300
Metered Parking at Pier
16,200
Additional Fuel Wharfage
15,000
Telephone/Vending
2.500
S200.692
Sixth Year Revenue
S227.065
Assumes 2.5% CPI adjustment
per year
Increases to occur every 5 years.
49
attachment III
5 ap,e I ot 2
O -3
H
2 ? §
O — Vi
s 3 »
3. rc —
H
H
2 ?
o g
3
2
z
PP
a 3
3
= P
o l->
3. n
n
x
n
73
n p
o
C 13"
<
f>
B
<
3
i
I
i
63
5
i
s? =
i
<
a
o
■
jj
2
3
3
r.
as
Z
5
o
r 1
n
v;
■<'
v <"
T,
3
m
—
c
o
P
—
a
S
-
3
ST
3
oo
rt
<
t:
o
EL
o
5
■3
6
2
^j>
o
—
o
-.
— •
n
r"
c
rf
B
-
■
g
1 — '
M
-•>
o
-J
o
^-J
©
.u
c*
s
i-n
o
-
^
50
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 8 - File 00-0095
Note:
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
This item was continued from the February 2, 2000
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting.
Department of Public Health (DPH)
Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in
the amount of $50,000 for DPH to fund an actuarial
study, as part of an overall feasibility stud}', of the
Methadone by Prescription Program.
$50,000
During the FY 1999-2000 budget review, the Board
of Supervisors appropriated $50,000 in the DPH
budget, and placed such funds on reserve, pending
submission of contract and related cost details, for
DPH to provide physician training, as part of the
Methadone by Prescription Program.
In February of 1998, the Board of Supervisors
directed the Department of Public Health (DPH) to
establish the Methadone by Prescription Program to
permit physicians to prescribe methadone for
patients addicted to opiates, as an alternative to
providing methadone solely in clinics (Resolution 56-
98). An interdisciplinary planning group, comprised
of providers, community groups, and DPH programs,
developed a model program to permit physicians to
prescribe methadone as a treatment to individuals
addicted to opiates.
In November of 1999. the Board of Supervisors
authorized DPH to accept $100,000 in Federal grant
funds to conduct a feasibility study of the Methadone
by Prescription Program to determine provider
interest in participating in the program, conduct
training sessions for providers, develop a centralized
data base, develop quality control and evaluation
protocols, and conduct an actuarial study of the
program (File 99-1993).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
51
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
The $50,000 in reserved funds, which is the subject
of this hearing and is additional to the $100,000
Federal grant funds noted above, was appropriated
by the Board of Supervisors and placed on reserve in
the FY 1999-2000 budget review to conduct provider
training for the Methadone by Prescription Program.
DPH is now requesting the release of the subject
$50,000 in reserved funds to conduct an actuarial
study of the Methadone by Prescription Program,
instead of funding a contract for DPH to provide
physician training, as part of the Methadone by
Prescription Program. According to Dr. Herminia
Palacio of DPH, both provider training and the
actuarial study are part of the overall feasibility
study for the Methadone by Prescription Program, as
noted above. Dr. Palacio states that DPH is now
proposing to expend the subject $50,000 in reserved
funds on an actuarial study of the Methadone by
Prescription Program, since the previously approved
Federal grant for $100,000 has funded the contract
for DPH to provide physician training as part of the
Methadone by Prescription Program
Budget:
The proposed budget for the actuarial study to be
conducted by Milliman & Robertson, an actuarial
firm, is as follows:
Hours
$/Hour
Total
Actuarial Analyst
150
$102
$15,300
Associate Actuary
202
15,150
Associate Actuary
37.5
270
10,125
Principal
340
2,550
Principal
3.75
495
1.856
273.75
$•44,981
Research and Data-
base Expenses
5.019
Total Budget
$50,000
Comments:
1. According to Ms. Okubo. Milliman & Robertson,
an actuarial firm, has been identified, by an Request
For Qualifications process, to perform the actuarial
cost analysis. The proposed budget allows for 273.75
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
52
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
professional hours for the actuarial study at an
average rate of $164 per hour. According to Ms.
Okubo, DPH initially contacted 11 firms regarding
the proposed study, and eight of those firms
requested Request for Qualification forms. Mi lb man
& Robertson was the only firm to respond to DPH
regarding this project.
2. According to Ms. Anne Okubo of DPH, the purpose
of the actuarial cost analysis is to determine the
potential cost of providing the Methadone by
Prescription Program. Ms. Okubo states that DPH
proposes to use $50,000 for an actuarial cost analysis
to estimate the cost of implementing three stages of
the proposed Methadone by Prescription Program.
Each stage would target 10 percent, 50 percent and
100 percent, respectively, of the eligible heroin-user
population, who would seek treatment for their
addiction. According to Ms. Okubo, the estimated
number of active heroin users in San Francisco is
13.000 to 15,000. However, Ms. Okubo states that, at
this time, DPH does not have an estimate of the
number of active heroin users who would seek
treatment for their addiction in the proposed
Methadone by Prescription Program, and that one
goal of the proposed actuarial study would be to
estimate the number of such individuals in order to
estimate the cost of the implementation in each of
the three stages, noted above.
3. Ms. Okubo advises that, in order to estimate the
cost of each stage of the proposed Methadone by
Prescription Program, the actuarial analysis would:
(a) estimate the number of heroin users in San
Francisco who would seek treatment for their
addiction in the Methadone by Prescription Program,
(b) compare the capacity of existing programs to the
estimate of heroin users seeking treatment, (c) collect
data on Medi-Cal and commercial insurance plan
reimbursement rates for methadone and other
substance abuse treatment services, primary care
services, and mental health services, provided by
private as well as DPH providers, and (d) analyze
utilization data for existing methadone treatment
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
53
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
services funded by Medi-Cal and General Fund
monies.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserves.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
54
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 9 - File 00-0235
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting
of March 22, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Leases:
Lessor:
Lessee:
Airport
Resolution approving two new automated teller
machine leases for the new International Terminal
between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and
County of San Francisco, acting b\' and through its
Airport Commission.
New International
Airport.
Terminal Complex of the
The proposed two new leases would provide space
in the new International Terminal for 20 to 22
automated teller machines (ATM), at ten different
locations. Travelex America, Inc. would install and
operate the proposed ATMs. Travelex America, Inc.
is required to install at least two ATMs at each of
the ten locations, and has the option to install a
third ATM at two of the ten locations, resulting in a
maximum of 22 ATMs. The Airport issued two
separate leases to operate ATMs in order to provide
lease opportunities to as many companies as
possible, however, Travelex America, Inc. was the
only company to submit bids for the two subject
leases (See below "Description" section).
City and County of San Francisco, acting by and
through its Airport Commission.
Travelex America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Monthly Rental Revenues
Payable by Travelex America. Inc.
to the Airport:
Annual Rental
Revenues Payable by
Travelex America, Inc.
to the Airport:
$20,125 monthly for each lease, for a total of
$40,250 per month for both leases ($241,500
annually per lease, or $483,000 annually for both
leases.)
Beginning from the first year of the lease, and
through the duration of the five-year lease period.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
55
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
there is no historical data for making such
forecasts.
However, according to Mr. Rhoades, Travelex
stated in its bid to the Airport that it plans to
request permission from the Airport Director to
impose a transaction surcharge on all ATM
customers, as stated in Attachment II, provided by
the Airport. Under the terms of the lease, Travelex
may not charge a transaction surcharge of more
than $1.50 per customer use, and Travelex would
pay the Airport 33 percent of those surcharges.
Under the terms of the lease, Travelex Amerj
Inc. must have written approval from the Airport
Director to impose a transaction surcharge, as
stated in the lease as follows:
Tenant shall not charge Transaction
Surcharges except as approved by Director
[emphasis added]. The Maximum amount of any
such Transaction Surcharge that may be
approved shall be $1.50 per Customer Use. The
amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and
a clear description of the customers to which it
applies must be posted in a clearly visible
manner on the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated
clearly through the ATMs electronic display
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue
the transaction with a Transaction Surcharge
before the Customer Use is
completed. ..Transaction Surcharges shall be
subject to Percentage Rent as described in the
lease.
Attachment II also contains: (a) the companies that
currently hold leases with the Airport for ATMs in
the Airport, (b) the annual Minimum Annual
Guarantees paid by each of these companies to the
Airport for the ATMs, and (c) the total combined
surcharge revenues of $315,192 paid to the Airport
by these companies for the ATM leases during
1999.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
57
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
the base annual rent payable by Travelex America,
Inc. to the Airport includes the Minimum Annual
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, for a total of
$483,000 per year, subject to Consumer Price Index
(CPI) annual adjustments. The $483,000 total
Minimum Annual Guarantee for both leases
applies to the ten proposed ATM locations,
regardless of whether Travelex installs 20 or 22
ATMs. In addition to the Minimum Annual
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, Travelex
America, Inc. would pay to the Airport Percentage
'Rent and Transaction Rent, defined as follows:
"Percentage Rent " means rent paid in addition to
and without set off against the [Minimum
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to
thirty-three percent (33%) of any Transaction
Surcharge and/or changes for Optional Uses
[defined as shown in Attachment I to this report]
approved by Director and charged to ATM
Customers who use the ATMs on the Premises.
"Transaction Rent" means rent paid in addition
to and without set off against the [Minimum
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to ten
cents ($0.10) for each Customer Use of Tenant's
ATM on the Premises except that Transaction
Rent shall not be payable with respect to 1) ATM
Customer Use as to which Percentage Rent is
payable, and 2) ATM Customer Use for which no
transaction is completed due to reject of a
customer's card or aborting by the customer of
the ATM Customer Use prior to concluding any
transaction.
According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the
Airport has not projected future revenues to be paid
by Travelex to the Airport, in addition to the
Minimum Annual Guarantee of $241,500 for each
lease, based on anticipated Percentage and
Transaction Rent payments. Mr. Rhoades advises
that estimating demand for the new ATMs and
related surcharge revenues is difficult since the
ATMs will be located in a new building, for which
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
56
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Utilities and Janitorial
Provided by Lessor:
Description:
Tenant
Improvements:
The two proposed leases would commence on
September 26, 2000. Each lease would be for a five
year period, terminating on September 25, 2005.
The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two
one-year extensions for each lease.
The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and
janitorial services.
On August 17, 1999, the Airport Commission
• requested bids for two Automated Teller Machine
Leases for the new International Terminal
Building. Subsequently, on December 21, 1999. the
Airport Commission adopted a resolution awarding
the two leases to Travelex America. Inc.. the sole
bidder (Resolution No. 99-0458). According to Mr.
Rhoades, the sole bidder, Travelex America, Inc.,
submitted a Minimum Annual Guarantee bid of
11,500. Mr. Rhoades advises thai the Airport
ued Invitations to Bid for the two ATM leases to
1 11 firms. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport
decided to issue two separate Leases, to operate 10
to 11 ATMs each, in order to provide lease
opportunities to as many companies as possible.
Attachment II also explains why the Airport
received only one bid to operate the ATM- at the
Airport.
Under the two proposed leases, Travelex America,
Inc. would install and operate 20 to 22 ATMs, at
ten different locations throughout the new
International Terminal. The ATMs would operate
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Lessee would be required, at its sole cost, to
design and construct the ATM enclosures, including
all fixtures, furnishings and equipment necessary
to Travelex America Inc.'s operations under the
subject lease. Travelex America, Inc.'s costs for
these improvements shall not be less than $5,000
per ATM, or $100,000 to $110,000 for all 20 to 22
ATMs. This minimum of $5,000 does not include
the cost of purchasing and installing the ATMs
themselves. According to Mr. Rhoades. the Airport
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
58
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
REVISED 4/7/00 Item 9 - File 00-0235
requires a minimum of $5,000 in improvements per
ATM to ensure that Travelex America, Inc.
constructs ATM enclosures consistent with the
design, materials and quality of the new
International Terminal.
Comments: 1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 20 to 22 ATMs
in the new International Terminal will be
completed by August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises
that the Airport's new International Terminal is
now scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or
three months later than the previously estimated
opening date of June 26, 2000, in order to allow the
Airport time to test the new facilities.
2. In November of 1999, the voters of San Francisco
approved Proposition F to prohibit banks and other
financial institutions from charging a fee to persons
who do not have an account with that bank or
financial institution, for use of that bank or
financial institution's automated teller machines in
San Francisco. These fees are often in addition to
fees charged to the customer by the customer's own
bank. In response to passage of Proposition F, Bank
of America, Wells Fargo and the California
Bankers' Association sued the City, arguing that
the City had no authority to restrict the fees that
banks charge customers. In November of 1999, a
U.S. District Court Judge granted a preliminary
injunction preventing the City from enacting
Proposition F. According to Mr. Marc Slavin of the
City Attorney's Office, upon appeal, the injunction
was upheld in the U.S. 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case has now moved to trial in the U.S. District
Court. No trial date has been set. Mr. Slavin
advises that the City Attorney's Office has not yet
formally determined whether Proposition F's
restriction on surcharge fees would apply to ATMs
at the Airport.
3. Mr. Slavin advises that the City Attorney's Office
has not yet formally determined whether Travelex
America, Inc. fits the definition of "bank or
financial institution," as defined in Proposition F.
However, if the City Attorney's Office determines
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
59
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
that Travelex America, Inc. does fall within the
purview of Proposition F and that Proposition F
applies to ATMs at the Airport, and if Proposition F
is upheld in the courts, then Travelex America, Inc.
would be prohibited from charging the proposed
surcharge of up to $1.50.
As previously reported, the Airport has not
estimated the amount of revenues that would be
generated by such proposed surcharges. However,
in accordance with the proposed lease provisions,
the Airport would receive 33 percent of these
surcharge revenues from Travelex America, Inc.
4. The Budget Analyst notes that under the
proposed leases, th<- Airport Director would have
the authority to approve such transaction
surcharges of up to $1.50 per customer u
5. In the time since the subject resolution was
continued to the Call of the Chair by the Finance
and Labor Committee at its meeting of March 22,
2000, the Airport has amended the two subject
ATM leases with Travelex America. Inc. The
leases, as amended, now state that if the courts
uphold Proposition F. and determine that
Proposition F applies to the ATMs al the Airport
covered by the subject leases (thereby precluding
transaction surcharges being charged by Travelex
America. Inc. to ATM customers at the Airport)
Travelex America would have the option to
terminate the subject ATM leases with the Airport,
without penalty.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
60
Attachment I
Page l or 3~
EXHIBIT B
USE AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS : All ATM Services shall be provided on a non-
exclusive basis, and Airpon reserves die right to sell and to permit other Airoon tenants to
provide such services. Tenant mav uot offer any services not described below as being
"Required" or "Optional", without Director's prior consent.
2. REQUIRED/OPTIONAL SERVICES : In the event Director permits any service to be
sold or offered that is not listed below, or otherwise permits any other change in the
Permined Use, this Exhibit shall be deemed amended without need for a formal
amendment of this Lease.' Tenant shall be required to operate the Premises in accordance
with the requirements, and offer the service, as described below:
A. Required Uses:
Tenant shall provide the following services, on a non-exclusive basis:
1. Dispense United States currency.
2. Provide access to network support form no less than four of the following
networks: Plus. Star. Cirrus. GlobalAccess and Interlink and accept no less than
four of the following credit cards: .American Express. Diner's Club, MasterCard.
Visa, Discover/Novus Card.
3. Provide a written receipt of each transaction.
4. Provide display functions on user operation.
5. Display transaction fee; surcharge information.
B. Optional Uses:
Tenant may provide, on a non-exclusive basis, the following "Optionai Use. as
approved in writing by the Director. Any "Optional Use" for which Tenant receives or
charges a commission, surcharge or other fee shell be subject to pavment of
percentage rent as described in Section 4 of the Lease.
1 . Provide access to financial networks and credit cards other than those -
under Exhibit B 2.A.2. hereto.
2. Dispense traveler's checks.
3. Dispense United States postage stamps at face value.
4. Provide tickets for San Francisco regional area cultural, performing arts and
sporting events.
5. Disoense airline tickets.
Exhibit B - Pa'-'tf 1
61
Attachment I
Paee 2 of 3
6. Display animated software graphics
7. Accepc deposits to accounts.
8. Handle debit card transactions.
9. Other services consistent with the operations of ATMs that can be demonbt/atea to
benefit customers and the traveling public, if and as approved bv the Airrjon
Director.
3. PROHIBITED USES/SERVICE
Tenant understands and agrees that "he following products or services are not included
within the Permitted Use. without the pnor written consent of Director, which censer.: ma
granted or denied in Director's absolute and sole discretion.
1. .Any and ail sales of phone cards
2. Dispense or exchange fore:gr. cur- e.ncy
3. Offer gambling of an;.
4. Display advertising, except that electronic display of Tenant's services dur :
"wait" times while transaci processing shall not be deemed to be
advertising prohibited
5. Sell any type of merchandise
A OPERATIONS
A. Hours of Operations
Each ATM shall operate rwent> -: lays a wee>
holidays.
B. Maintenance and Operation of Units
ATMs must be capable of handling. \ ia telephone link; access to accounts for transact:
inducing withdrawals, deposits ar.c charges against credit lines. Without lim
generality of Section 3.1 1 [Compliance with Law?". Ten
ATMs to be in compliance with all Governmental, Banking and F.AA Regulations
security requirements and Airport Rules ar.c Regulations. Tenant shall be responsib
secure transport of cash and receipts to and from each specific ATM location. Pursuant to
F.AA Regulations, no arms are permitted beyond the security checkpc
not be responsible for escorting ATM service personnel.
the ATMs and each location will be kept in clean, dust free, neat anc first-class business-like
and orderly condition at all times. The ATMs will be serviced and monitorec in a manner thai
ensures the continual and uninterrupted operation of each unit. The Airport Director ma\
require more frequent servicing and stocking upon written notice to Tenant
maintain and service units according to the aforesaid standard will result in the imoosii r
Exhibit B - Pa»- 2
,£0
Attachment I
Page 3 of 3
progressively stringent fines, as provided in Section 15.S hereto. Emergencv service resoonse
should be available within ninety (90) minutes of notice. Except for emergencv response,
servicing of the ATM units must be done during off-peak hours of 2:30 p.m. through 5:30
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. through 5:30 a_m. or other hours as may be designated in writing from
time to rime by Director.
C. Informational Displays
Tenant shall provide and dispiay at each ATM unit ail written directions necessary to inscruc;
customers in the operation of the ATM. Tenant shall also provide, either through the ATM's
electronic display or affixed to the ATM. information for the obtaining machine services
and/or refunds. Tenant shall not place or install any racks, stands or other dispiav on anv
Airport property outside the Premises.
D. Transaction Surcharges
Tenant shall not charge Transaction Surcharges except as approved in writing bv Director.
The Maximum amount of any such Transaction Surcharge that may be approved shall be
SI. 50 per Customer Use. The amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and a clear
description of the customers to which it applies must be posted in a dearly visible manner on
the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated clearly through the ATM's electronic display
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue the transaction with a Transaction
Surcharge before the Customer Use is completed. .Any Transaction Surcharges charged b\
Tenant must be consistent throughout the Airport and cannot exceed charges at other locations
in Tenant's system. Transaction Surcharges shall be subject to Percentage Rent as described
in the Lease.
E. Management
Tenant shall seiect and appoint a full-time experienced manager fully authorized to reoresent
and act on behalf of Tenant providing an emergency contact number on a twenty-four 24
hour basis.
Tenant shall not staff the ATM locations, conduct other business, provide other services or
sell any type of merchandise. No brochures cr advertising will be displayed without pi
written approval from the Airport Director
The provisions set fourth in this Exhibit B shall be in addition to and not in limitation of the
other Drovisions in the Lease.
nil 8 - ?!■:■: :
Attachment II
Faee 1 of 2
San Francisco International Airport
?aSox8C97
i*n rrjncjco. G* WU3
Ttt «£0.79<5COO
r4»S;u./>i.iOOS
«"»«» rlysfo.com
.AIRPORT COMMISSION
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SaN FRANCISCO
co«»isno.
CITY JND COUNTY
Of 5*« (»*™c:SJO
WILUt L »»0»<r<.jB.
Mjron
MtNRr L J[«M*K
rmtstotMT
/ICf ?>tilO(MT
lirMAIl 5. JTHUNSlCY
'w^NOA t. C3AVTON
TO. Emiiic Neumann
Budge: Analyst's 02c:
DATE: February 24, 2000
FROM: Jod Ballcsieros
SUBJECT: File f?OCC235 - Airport ATM Services Lease
Belcw please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution
before the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Lease for ATM Services.
SURCHARGES
JCMN L MART
Trayelex America, Inc. plans to charge a surcharge as permitted in Exhibit B. 7r-e ammmt
of the surcharge will not exceed 51-50.
The Aimer wtf] receive 33% of inv surcharge Travelex charges
1 ' ' '
CURRENT ATM LEASE AGREEMENTS
?ar>
Barik of America currently has two Leases with ATM Machines: Lease LS6-0039 has two
bank branches and eight ATM machines and a MAG cf 5214,160 (plus additional surcharge
and transaction rents) and Lease L91-OQ29 has six ATM machines and a MAG of
(pius additional surcharge and transaction rents).
Wells Fargo Bank Lease 97-0293 has 1 ATM machines and a MAG of 3 - ! 1
additional surcharge and transaction rents).
The total amount of transaction fee and surcharge revenues generated bv the leases in
calendar year 1999 equaled 5315,192.
Attachment il
Pase 2 or 2
Enuiis Neumann;
February 24, 2000 :
?3S= 2 '
ESTIMATED ANNUAL RENTAL REVENUES
Travelex America, Inc. was the sole responsive bidder, and Travelex America, Inc. will execute
both Leases, wiril the bid amount of 5241,500 which will be the minimum annual guarantee for
each Lease for the first year. Travelex America, Inc. will pay the MAG for each Lease plus,
additional surcharge and transaction rents.
There are no estimated forecasts for revenues generaied from transaction fees at this time as
these fees are based on user volume. Due to the fact that the ATM machines will be located in a
building that did'not exist previously, there is no historical data on which to make such forecasts.
BLDDLNG PROCESS
Tne Airport offered Invitarions to Bid for the ATM services lease to 158 firms. Staff received
one bid from Travelex America, Inc. for 5241,500.
Bank of America and "wells Fargo Bank were invited to bid on these leases. However, both
companies cited'issues with the rent structure, the 5180,000 Minimum Bid, and the outcome of
legal activity surrounding Proposition "F*, the initiative that would prohibit ATM surcharges in
San Francisco.
&S
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit tee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 10 - File 00-0519
Department:
Item:
Description:
(1)
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Montb:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
Department of Real Estate (DRE)
Department of Public Health (DPH)
Resolution authorizing extension and renewal of nine
ting leases of real property leased by the Department
of Public Health
Each of the nine proposed DPH leases is summarized
below:
298 Monterey Boulevard (entire building)
Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 1
John William Powell and Sylvia Campbell Powell
(2) Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
4.025 square feet @ approximately $1.06 per square
foot per month, or $4,265 per month (see Comment
No. 1).
180
Approximately 31 percent
Janitorial services only.
July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to
exceed 12 months)
None
68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General
Fund
3901-3905 Mission Street (portion of the ground
floor)
Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 1983)
Giovacchino and Armando Diodati
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
66
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
2,570 square feet @ $1.20 per square foot per
month, or $3,084 per month.
$37,008
None
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor: ' Landlord provides all utilities and janitorial
services.
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
(3) Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to
exceed 12 months).
None
68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General
Fund
3911 Mission Street (portions of the ground floor)
Outpatient Mental Health Services (since 1984)
Giovacchino and Armando Diodati
1,500 square feet @ $1.20 per square foot per
month, or $1,800 per month.
$21,600
None
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor: Landlord provides all utilities and janitorial
services.
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (no! to
exceed 12 months)
None
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
67
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Source of Funds:
(4) Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
No. ofSq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
(5) Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General
Fund
111 Potrero Avenue (ground floor)
Adult Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 1987)
111 Potrero Partnership
6,000 square feet @ $2.50 per square foot per
month, or $ 15,000 per month.
$180,000
25 percenl
Janitorial services only.
July 1. _!000 on a month-to-month basis (not to
exceed 12 months)
None
68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General
Fund
10-20 Twentv-ninth Street (entire building)
Children's Outpatieni Mental Health Clinic (since
1972)
George, Lois, and Lawrence Maisels
2,400 square feet (g 1 approximately $0.62 per square
foot per month, or $1,500 per month.
$18,000
None
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
68
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
(6) Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
(7) Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
None
July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to
exceed 12 months)
None
68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General
Fund
755-61 South Van Ness Avenue (ground floor)
Adult Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 1973)
AIM TWO
7,101 square feet @ approximately $1.21 per square
foot per month, or $8,591 per month.
$103,092
10 percent
None
July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to
exceed 12 months)
None
68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General
Fund
759 South Van Ness Avenue (entire second floor)
Children's Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since
1988)
AIM TWO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
69
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
(8)
No. ofSq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
No. ofSq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
6,445 square feet @ approximately $1.55 per square
foot per month, or $9,961 per month.
$119,532
Approximately 10.7 percent
None
July 1. 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to
exceed 12 months)
None
68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General
Fund
1540 Market Street (Suite 250)
DPH Wedge Program (since 1996)
1540 Market Company
2,121 square feet @ approximately $1.08 per square
foot per month, or $2,297.75 per month.
$27,573
None
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor: Landlord is responsible for utilities and janitorial
services.
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
July 1. 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to
exceed 12 months)
None
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
70
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Source of Funds:
(9)
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Percentage Increase
Over 1999-2000:
Federal Centers for Disease Control grant for HIV
prevention
1540 Market Street (Suite 260)
DPH Tobacco Program (since 1995)
1540 Market Company
1,296 square feet @ approximately $1.08 per square
foot per month, or $1,404 per month.
$16,848
None
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor: Landlord is responsible for utilities and janitorial
services.
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to
exceed 12 months))
None
Proposition 99 and Proposition A tobacco grant
funds.
Comments:
1. The Budget Analyst has been informed that the DRE
wiU submit an amended resolution to the Board of
Supervisors increasing the proposed rental rate for 298
Monterey Avenue (Lease No. 1) from $3,250 per month to
$4,265. Therefore, this report is based on that amended
resolution.
2. Mr. Steve Alms of DRE states that DPH has been
searching for alternative accommodation to both 111
Potrero Avenue (Lease No. 4) and 755-61 South Van Ness
Avenue (Lease No. 6) since FY 1996-97, which is why both
leases were on a month-to-month basis. Now, according
to Mr. Alms, after searching for alternative
accommodation over four fiscal years, the DPH has
requested the DRE to enter into negotiations at 755-61
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
71
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
South Van Ness Avenue for a renovation and a long-term
lease which could permit the consolidation at thai Bite of
the Adult Outpatient Mental Health Clinics which are
currently located separately at 111 Potrero Avenue and
755-61 South Van Ness Avenue. The proposed long-term
lease would also require minor improvements to t he-
second floor of the building (Lease No. 7), and would
consolidate Leases No. 6 and 7 into a single long-term
lease agreement. It is unlikely that the negotiations,
renovation construction, and consolidation of the clinics
and lease agreements could be completed until the second
half of FY 2000-2001, according to Mr Alms. The new
lease would be subject to the approval of the Board of
Supervisors
3. In relation to 10-20 Twenty-ninth Street (Lease X
Mr. Alms states that the DPH has been trying to move
from that location since FY 1996-97. DRE, at DPH's
request, is negotiating a new lease for 1527 Mission
Street to better serve clients of the 10-20 Twenty-ninth
Street clinic who live in the South Mission District.
Separate legislation will be submitted to the Board of
Supervisors seeking authority to enter into the proposed
lease at 4527 Mission Street. According to Ms. Judy
Schutzman of DPH, the DPH is currently searching for an
alternative Bayview location to establish a clinic for the
clients of the 10-20 Twenty-ninth Street clinic who live in
the Bayview district. In the meantime, Bayview cl;
will continue to be served from the current 10-20 Twenty-
ninth Street location.
4. The attached memorandum, provided by Mr. Alms,
explains the reasons for the following rent increases:
• The approximately 31 percent increase in the annual
rent for 29S Monterey Boulevard (Lease No. 1)
following a 14 percent rent increase in FY 1999-2000.
This has resulted in an overall rent increase of
approximately 50 percent over three years, from
• $2,850 monthly (S34.200 annually) in FY' 1998-99 to
the proposed S4.265 month ($51,180 annually) in FY
2000-2001.
• The 25 percent increase in the annual rent for 111
Potrero Avenue (Lease No. 4) following (a) a 31
percent rent increase in the first three months of FY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
72
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
1999-2000, (b) a 14.3 percent increase in the last nine
months of FY 1999-2000, and (c) a 43 percent rent
increase in FY 1998-99. This has resulted in an
overall rent increase of approximately 168 percent
over four years, from $5,602 monthly ($67,224
annually) in FY 1997-98 to the proposed $15,000
monthly ($180,000 annually) in FY 2000-2001.
• The 10 percent increase in the annual rent for 755-61
South Van Ness Avenue (Lease No. 6) following (a) a
10 percent increase in FY 1999-2000, and (b) an
approximately 25 percent increase in FY 1998-99.
This has resulted in an overall rent increase of
approximately 51 percent over four years, from $5,689
monthly ($68,268 annually) in FY 1997-98 to the
proposed $8,591 monthly ($103,092 annually) in FY*
2000-2001.
• The approximately 11 percent increase in the annual
rent for 759 South Van Ness Avenue (Lease No. 7)
following (a) a 12 percent increase in FY 1999-2000,
(b) a 31 percent increase in FY 1998-99, and (c) a 5
percent increase in FY 1997-98. This has resulted in
an overall rent increase of approximately 71 percent
over five years, from $5,842 monthly ($70,104
annually) in FY 1996-97 to the proposed $9,961
monthly ($119,532 annually) in FY 2000-2001.
5. According to Ms. Schutzman, lease funding for all nine
leases will be included in the FY 2000-2001 DPH budget
request.
6. Mr. Alms reports that all of the proposed rents reflect
fair market value.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
73
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Harvev M. Rose
Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teim
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Erin McGrath
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakev
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
74
APR-05-2000 15=03
CCSF REAL ESTATE DEPT
City and County of San Francisco
Attachme nt
Page 1 of 2
Real Estate Division
Administrative Services Department
MEMORANDUM
April 5, 2000
TO: Harvey Rose
Budget Analyst
FROM: Steve Alms
Senior Real Property Officer
554-9865
SUBJECT: Public Health Lease Renewals
Fiscal Year 2000/2001
The following explanations are provided in response to your questions regarding the various
Public Health lease renewals.
298 Monterey Boulevard (Item #1)
The increase in rent from $3,250.00 to $4,265.00 per month represents an increase of
approximately 31% over the prior year. Rent for the facility has historically been well below
market, and the market continues to rise dramatically. The rent negotiated with the landlord for
fiscal year 2000/2001 is at or below market rate.
Ill Potrero Avenue (Item #4)
The proposed increase in rent from $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 per month represents an increase of
25% over the prior year. The rent increase reflects the significant change currently taking place in
the market, and the landlord's expectation that the extension is intended to be for a short term.
The change in the market continues to be driven by the much-publicized demand for office space
to house the multi-media industry. The $2.50 per square foot rate negotiated with the landlord is
market rate rent.
755-61 South Van Ness Avenue (Item #6)
The increase in rent from $7,810.00 to $8,591.00 per month represents an increase of
approximately 10% over the prior year. As noted above, the market has changed dramatically.
The market rate rent negotiated with the landlord for fiscal year 2000/2001 is a nominal change
compared to the change in the market. As noted, the intent is to negotiate a long term, market
rate lease for the entire building, which would include a major renovation of the premises
(415)554-9850
FAX: (415)552-9216
Office of the Director of Property
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400
San Francisco, 94102
75
APR-05-2000 15:09 CCSF REAL ESTATE DEPT Attachment
Page 2 of 2
759 South Van Ness Avenue (Item Ul)
The increase in rent from S9.055.00 to $9,961.00 per month represents an increase of
approximately 10% over the prior year. As noted above, the market has changed dramatically.
The market rate rent negotiated with the landlord for fiscal year 2000/2001 is a nominal change
compared to the change in the market. As noted, the intent is to negotiate a long term, market
rate lease for the entire building, which would include a major renovation of the premises.
At the request of the Department of Public Health, the Real Estate Division is currently
negotiating the terms of a new long-term lease for the entire building at 755-765 and 759 South
Van Ness Avenue. The clinic currently located at 1 1 1 Potrero Avenue would be consolidated
with that now at 755-65 South Van Ness (ground floor), and the clinic currently located at 759
South Van Ness (second floor) would remain at that location. In the mean time, it is prudent to
maintain month-to-month agreements in order to maximize the City's ability to react in the
current market.
All of the rents proposed for the 2000/2001 fiscal year reflect fair market value. If there are other
questions regarding the proposed renewals, please call me at 554-9865.
H:U9\49»Sfy3flOO-2001 mtmo\
TOTAL P. 03
76
a***
CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
April 6, 2000
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
APR t 1 2000
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: ,Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Separate Report on FY 2000-2001 CDBG Budget
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Item 6 - File 00-0488
Department:
Item:
Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD)
Resolution approving the FY 2000-2001 Community Development
Program. This resolution would (a) authorize the Mayor, on
behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to accept and
expend the City's FY 2000-2001 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) entitlement from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and program income generated by the
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $33,734,275, which
includes indirect costs of $160,000; and (b) approve the
expenditure schedule for recipient departments and agencies and
for indirect costs.
Amount:
Up to $33,734,276
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
DATE, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Total Community Development Block Grant Program funding in
FY 2000-2001 includes the FY 2000-2001 CDBG grant funds
provided to the City by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, transfer and expenditure of reprogrammed
funds from prior year Community Development Programs, and
program income generated by the Mayor's Office of Community
Development, the Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH), and the San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA), as follows:
FY 2000-2001 CDBG Program funds
Prior Year CDBG Program funds
Program Income (MOH and SFRA'
Total
1)25,000
350,000
8.459.275
$33,734,275
July 1. 2000 through June 30, 2001
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Required Match: None
Indirect Costs: $ 1 1 iO.000
Under Title I of the Federal Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, and related Federal
regulations, San Francisco is eligible to receive a Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG). The primary objective of the
CDBG Program is to develop viable urban communities by
supporting programs providing decent housing, a suitable living
environment, or economic opportunity for low- and moderate-
income residents of San Francisco.
The recommended FY 2000-2001 CDBG budget is $25,275,000,
which is $64,945 or 0.25 percent more than the FY 1999-2000
CDBG budget of $25,210,055. Section I through XIII of this
report provides an analysis of the proposed FY 2000-2001 CDBG
budget, including the Budget Analyst's recommendations.
Additionally, funds in the amount of $8,459,275 would be used for
specific program-income funded activities, as discussed in Section
XIII of this report.
Attachment I. provided by Ms. Pamela David of MOCD, contains
an explanation of the proposed Capital Projects Pool within the
Progam Income-Funded Activities program.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
DATE, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comments:
Attachment II is the CDBG Program Summary of
Recommendations. The table includes the FY 1999-2000 CDBG
budget, the proposed FY 2000-2001 budget, and a summary of
changes from FY 1999-2000 to FY 2000-2001.
1. The original grant period for the FY 1999-2000 CDBG Program
funds was from April 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000. The FY
2000-2001 CDBG grant period is from July 1, 2000 through June
30, 2001, coinciding with the City's fiscal year. Therefore, the FY
1999-2000 CDBG Program has been extended from April 1, 2000
through June 30, 2000. In October of 1999, the Board of
Supervisors approved the reprogramming of $3,920,955 in
unencumbered balances from prior years' CDBG uncommitted
balances, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency program income
funds, and HUD Development Action Grants, to fund the 3 month
extension (File 99-1826).
2. The San Francisco Administrative Code stipulates that everj r
nonprofit organization receiving funding through the City and
County must file an Annual Economic Statement with the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors before the nonprofit organization can
be allocated its final funding. MOCD advises that it expects all of
the organizations to have filed their statements prior to the final
allocation of the 1999 CDBG funds.
Summary of
Recommendations:
The Budget Analyst's recommendations for the FY 2000-2001
CDBG and Program Income budget are as follows:
> Reduce the FY 2000-2001 Program Administration budget by
$13,146, from the proposed amount of $4,416,605 to
$4,403,459, and place the amount of $13,146 on reserve to be
used for other CDBG eligible activities.
> Reserve $533,581 of the requested FY 1999-2000 CDBG and
Program Income funds, totaling $33,734,275, as follows:
(1) $90,000 in the Facility Emergency Relief Pool, to be used to
fund the Lavender Youth Recreation and Information
Center, pending submission of a program plan and budget
details.
(2) $100,000 in the Mayor's Economic Development Pool,
pending submission of a program plan and budget details.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
REVISED 4/7/00 Item 6 - File 00-0488
(3) $43,581 in the MOCD Planning and Capacity Building
Pool, pending submission of an expenditure plan and
budget details.
(4) $300,000 in the Program Income Capital Projects Pool, b
be used to fund American with Disabilities Ac
improvements for Brooks Hall, pending submission o
budget details.
Approval of funding in the amount of $4,204,827 for new or
expanded programs is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
Approve funding m the amount of $29,516,302, including
CDBG and Program Income programs, for existing programs
for which the recommended budget for FY 2000-2001 was
unchanged from the FY" 1999-2000 budget.
Harvev M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor N'ewsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Erin McGrath
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakev
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
4
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section I: Housing Program Administration - $2,482.560
The MOCD proposes to allocate $2,482,560 in FY 2000-2001 to fund ten
Housing Program Administration agencies, an increase of $214,880, or 9.3
percent, from the FY 1999-20000 budget allocation of $2,267,680.
Descriptions of the proposed Housing Program Administration programs with
new or increased funding are as follows:
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Asian, Inc.
Increase low income housing opportunities
and development primarily in the South of
Market, Tenderloin, and Visitacion Valley
areas.
SO
S211.180
S211.180
Asian Neighborhood Design
Provides citywide technical assistance
ad community education related to
development and improvement of low
income housing.
316,200
319,200
3,000
Mission Housing Development Corp.
Increase low income housing opportunities
primarily through new family and senior
housing in Visitacion Valley and Outer
Mission communities; and provide rehab
loan assistance to low income homeowners
Citywide.
359,300
360,000
700
Total New or Increased Funding
$359,300
$571,180
$214,880
Comment
According to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH, Asian, Inc. received $211,180 in
CDBG funding in FY 1998-1999 but no funding in FY 1999-2000. Mr.
LaTorre states that program issues delayed the signing of the FY 1998-1999
contract with Asian, Inc. in FY 1998-1999, and the FY* 1998-1999 CDBG
funds in the amount of $211,180 were not released to Asian, Inc. until the
end of the funding year. Therefore, such funds were carried over into the FY
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
5
Memo to Finance and Labor Commn I
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
1999-2000 funding year and Asian, Inc. received no additional FY 1999-2000
CDBG funds.
Recommendations
1. Approve $2,267,680 of the requested $2,479,560 for Housing Program
Administration programs to continue funding for existing programs.
2. Approval of $214,880 in funding for new or expanded Housing Program
Administration programs is a policy matter for the Board of Supeivi-
board of supervisors
Bidget Analyst
6
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section II: Housing Program Pool - $5,406.501
The MOH proposes to fund 15 new and continuing Housing Program Pool
projects in FY 2000-2001. Funding for such projects would include prior year
unallocated CDBG Housing Program Pool funds, program income funds, and
FY 2000-2001 CDBG program funds. Housing Program Pool funds are used
for the acquisition of land for low-income housing construction, for the
renovation of existing buildings to be used for low-income housing, and for
pre-development costs.
Projected program funds, including the subject $5,406,501 CDBG funds, total
$11,942,674. The FY* 2000-2001 CDBG allocation of $5,406,701 is $266,414
or 4.7 percent less than the FY 1999-2000 allocation of $5,673,115. Funding
sources for the Housing Program Pool are as follows:
Source of Funds
Amount
Current and Prior Years' Unallocated CDBG Pool funds
Program Income from Completed and Amortized Loans
Estimated FY 2000-2001 Program Income
FY 2000-2001 CDBG Funds
$3,941,855
2,354,118
240,000
5,406,701
Total Funds
$11,942,674
MOH has proposed use of the Housing Program Pool funds, as follows:
Program
Proposed FY
2000-2001 Budget
Unexpended Existing Commitments
473 Ellis Street
34 Turk Street
665 Clay Street
651 Clay Street
Subtotal
Commitments Expected bv 7/1/2000
Loans to low-income/elderly single
family homeowners
209 Golden gate Avenue (predevelopment
costs)
240 Hyde Street (capital improvements)
1340 Portola (refinancing)
Subtotal
$287,900
341,315
2.850,000
81.000
$3,560,215
$753,481
78,480
2,258,152
397.000
$3,487,113
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
7
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Program
Proposed FY
2000-2001 Budget
Other Prooosed FY 2000-2001 Programs
909 Geary Street (capital improvements)
34 Turk Street (capital improvements)
450 Ellis Street (capital improvements)
220 Pierce Street (capital improvements)
Supportive housing for homeless and
disabled persons (site to be determined)
Capital improvements to existing
affordable housing owned by nonprofits
(sites to be determined)
Loans to low-income/elderly single family
homeowners (sites to be determined)
Subtotal
i.OOO
.000
318,000
■.o.ooo
400,062
- 284
2.500.000
$4,895,346
Total Proposed Uses $11,942,674
Comments
According to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH, MOH will issue Notices of Funding
Availability" for renovation of facilities to provide supportive housing for
homeless and disabled individuals ($400,062) and for funds for capital repairs
to existing nonprofit-owned affordable housi: 284), as shown in the
table above.
Recommendation
Approve the requested amount of $5,406,501 for the FY 2000-2001 Housing
Program Pool.
Board of Siper\ isors
Bidget Analyst
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section III: Public Housing Program - $251.000
The MOCD proposes to allocate $251,000 to fund four new Public Housing
Program Projects in FY 2000-2001, an increase of $151,000, or 51 percent,
from the FY 1999-2000 budget allocation of $100,000.
Descriptions of the proposed Public Housing Program Pool with increased
funding are as follows:
Program
FY
1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY
2000-2001
Budget
2401 Post Street
Provide ADA facility upgrades at San
Francisco Head Start Center at Westside
Courts in the Western Addition.
$80,000
$80,000
1111 Buchanan Street
Provide ADA facility upgrades at Housing
Authority site leased to the Department of
Recreation and Parks for senior and
disabled citizens in the Western Addition.
100,000
100,000
125 West Point Road
Provide ADA facility upgrades at San
Francisco Head Start Center Located at
Hunter's View in the Bayview.
47,000
47,000
2525 Griffith Street
Provide ADA facility upgrades at San
Francisco Boys and Girls Club at the Alice
Griffith Public Housing Family Development
in the Bayview.
24,000
24,000
Total New Program Funding in
FY 2000-2001
$251,000
Programs funded in FY 1999-2000 and
not funded in FY 2000-2001
100.000
(100.000)
Total
$100,000
$251,000
$151,000
All of the projects under this program are for capital improvements and do
not fund staff or administrative costs. The proposed cost for each project is
based on an estimate prepared by an architectural consultant and reviewed
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
9
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Commit!''- Meeting
by MOCD. The actual project expenditures will be determined through a
competitive selection of contractors.
The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summary budgets noted
above, and has found that the requested amounts are reasonable.
Recommendations
Approval of the proposed FY 2000-2001 Public Housing Program Pool budget
of $251,000 is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors
Bidget Analyst
10
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section IV : Public Space Improvement Sl.666.214
The MOCD proposes to allocate $1,666,214 to fund Public Space
Improvement Projects in FY 2000-2001, a decrease of $22,001, or 1.3 percent,
from the FY 1999-2000 budget allocation of $1,688,215.
Descriptions of the proposed Public Space Improvements programs are as
follows:
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY 2000-
2001
Budget
San Francisco Conservation Corps
Funds would be used to install or
renovate play structures at various
sites in the City
SI. 067,715
SI. 210,714
S142.999
San Francisco League of Urban
Gardeners
Provide landscaping and other outdoor
improvements to various community
garden sites in the City
310,500
255,500
(55,000)
Public Space Improvement
Program Pool
Would be used to provide a 13.6
percent contingency for the play
structure and landscaping projects
noted above
200,000
200,000
Programs funded in FY 1999-2000 and
not funded in FY 2000-2001
110.000
(110.000)
Total
$1,688,215
$1,666,214
($22,001)
The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summary budgets noted
above, and has found that the requested amounts are reasonable.
Comments
1. According to Mr. Jon Pon of MOCD, the San Francisco Conservation Corps
(SFCC) would use SFCC staff to install or repair play structures. Required
materials would be obtained through a competitive bid procedure.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
11
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. Mr. Pon states that the Public Space Improvement Pool, totaling $200,000,
would be used to fund 0.60 FTE to administer the program ($46,870), fund
construction of one new play structure at a childcare center <S100,000), and
modify existing play structures to comply with Public Playground Safety
Standards ($53,130).
Recommendations
1. Approve funding in the amount of SI. 523, 205 out of the requested amount
of $1,666,214 for ongoing Public Space Improvement programs, including
$200,000 for the Public Space Improvement Pool, $1,067,715 for the San
Francisco Conservation Corps, ami $255,500 for the San Francisco Urban
Gardeners
2. Approval of increased funding in the amount of $ 1 1- ,999 for the San
Francisco Conservation Corps is a policy matter for the Board of Supen i
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
12
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section V: New Facilities Development - $650,500
The MOCD proposes to allocate $650,500 to fund six New Facilities
Development Projects in FY 2000-2001, a decrease of $273,500, or 29.6
percent, from the FY 1999-2000 budget allocation of $924,000.
New facilities are defined as those projects in which the agency is purchasing
or building new space, expanding into larger space, or renovating space for
new programs not previously available from that agency. This program
category involves development of multi-purpose neighborhood, senior, and
mental health service centers in high need lower-income communities.
All of the projects under this program are for capital improvements or new
construction and do not fund staff or administrative costs. The proposed cost
for each project is based on an estimate prepared by an architectural
consultant and reviewed by MOCD. The actual expenditures will be
determined through a competitive selection of contractors.
Descriptions of the proposed New Facilities Development with new funding
are as follows:
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Community Center Project
Construct computer education room and
class room in community center serving
lesbian, gay and transgender youth and
adults
90,000
90,000
Geneva Valley Development
Corporation
Complete shell and tenant improvements
at new multi-service community center
in Visitacion Valley
150,000
150,000
Board of Supervisors
Budget analyst
13
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY 2000-
2001
Budget
North of Market Senior Services
Rehabilitate basement and ground floor
of newly acquired budding to be used for
programs for seniors.
100,000
100,000
YMCA of San Francisco
Provide improvements at alternative
high school, including electrical
upgrades, ADA access work, fire
sprinklers/alarm system, and fire rated
stairwells
100,000
100,000
Total New Program Funding in
FY 2000-2001
$440,000
Programs funded in FY 1999-2000 and
not funded or reduced in FY 2000-2001
713,500
(ST 13.500)
Total
$924,000
$650,500
($273,500)
The Budget Analyst has reviewed budget details for the summary budgets
noted above and has found them to be reasonable.
Comment
According to Mr. Pon, cost estimates for the capital improvement projects
were developed by an architectural consultant and were reviewed by MOCD.
All projects will be subject to the competitive bidding process.
Recommendation
1. Approval of requested funding of S440.000 for new projects to be funded
from the FY 2000-2001 CDBG program funds is a policy matter for the Board
of Supervisors.
2. Approve $210,500 for continuing projects.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
14
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section VI: Existing Facility Renovation - $1.342.600
The MOCD proposes to fund 20 agencies in the amount of $1,342,600 for
Existing Facilities Renovation in FY 2000-2001, an increase of $310,420 or 30
percent, from the FY 1999-2000 budget allocation of $1,032,180.
The Rehabilitation of Existing Facilities primarily involves rehabilitating
buildings to meet health, fire and safety codes and licensing requirements.
All of the projects under this program are for capital improvements or new
construction and do not fund staff or administrative costs. The proposed cost
for each project is based on an estimate prepared by an architect and
reviewed by MOCD. The actual expenditures will be determined through a
competitive bid process.
Funding proposed by MOCD for 20 existing community facilities is as follows:
Program
FY
1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY
2000-2001
Budget
Arriba Juntos
Install elevator to make second floor
classrooms wheelchair accessible
100,000
100,000
Asian Neighborhood Design
Install elevator to improve accessibility to
computer training center and classroom
50,000
50,000
CAHEED
Rehabilitate infant/toddler development
facility
60,000
60.000
Coleman Advocates for Children
Improve access to early childhood
development center, family support services,
after school youth programs, and other
services
115.000
115,000
Board of Sipern isors
Budget Analyst
15
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Program
FY
1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY
2000-2001
Budget
Economic Opportunity Council of SF
Repair termite damage, replace windows,
and improve interior fighting at childcare
center at 200 Cashmere Street
$0
$80,000
$80,000
Economic Opportunity Council of SF
Repair water damage and make safety
improvements at Sojourner Truth Children's
Center
•00
16,000
Ingleside Community Center
Upgrade electrical system and correct
drainage at youth center
25,000
25,000
Meals on Wheels of SF
Replace roof at meal preparation site
15,000
>00
Mission Language and Vocational
School, Inc.
Replace light fixtures, heating system, and
floor tiles at job training center
50,000
56,500
6,500
Mission Neighborhood Centers
Install mechanical ventilation, expand
children's todet in childcare facility
68,000
68,000
Potrero Hill Neighborhood House
Replace heating system, windows, and
skylights at neighborhood center
120,000
120.000
Sage Project
Provide accessibility improvements for
building that serves women and girls
dealing with and moving away from
prostitution
100,000
100,000
Southwest Community Corporation
Repair dry rot. plumbing, and install new
signage at community facility
50,000
50,000
Board of Supervisors
Bi dget Analyst
16
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY
2000-2001
Budget
St. Boniface Neighborhood Center
Rehabilitation of neighborhood shelter and
drop in center to provide ADA accessibility
$0
$175,000
$175,000
Visitacion Valley Community Center
Replace roof and upgrade alarm system at
66 Raymond Avenue
12,000
12.000
Visitacion Valley Community Center
Install linoleum flooring in senior dining
room at 50 Raymond Avenue
30.000
30,000
YMCAofSF
Install new flooring in social hall used by
seniors, adults, and youth
15,000
15,000
Total New Funding in
FY 2000-2001 budget
$1,096,500
Projects funded in FY 1999-2000 and not
funded in FY 2000-2001
$786,080
($786,080)
Total
$1,032,180
$1,342,600
$310,420
The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summarj' budgets noted
above, and has found that the requested amounts are reasonable.
Comment
According to Mr. Pon, cost estimates for the capital improvement projects
were developed by an architectural consultant and were reviewed by MOCD.
All projects will be subject to the competitive selection of contractors.
Recommendations
1. Approve funding of $246,100 of the requested FY 2000-2001 CDBG
amount of $1,342,600 for continuing programs.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
17
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. Approval of requested funding of $1,096,500 for 14 new projects and one
expanded project to be funded from the FY JlOOO-2001 CDBG program
funds is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
18
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section VII: Other Rehabilitation Program Pools - $1.490.000
The MOCD proposes to allocate $1,490,000 to two Program Pools in FY 2000-
2001, an increase of $90,000, or a 6.4 percent increase from the FY 1999-2000
budget allocation of 1,400,000 for the two Program Pools.
Descriptions of the proposed Program Pools with increased funding is as
follows:
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Facility Emergency Relief Pool
Provided emergency capital funding to
existing facilities that encounter
unforeseen code problems during
construction
$1,000,000
SI. 090.000
$90,000
Disability Access Upgrade Pool
Provides funds to currently funded
CDBG and Emergency Shelter Grant
(ESG) agencies to bring then agencies
into compliance with Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements
400,000
400,000
Total
$1,400,000
$1,490,000
$90,000
Comments
1. According to Mr. Pon, the Facility Emergency Relief Pool provides funds to
existing and new facility construction and renovation projects, noted in
Sections V and VI above, that encounter unforeseen code or construction
problems during the construction or renovation of the facility. Funds are also
available to cover certain predevelopment expenses associated with the
development of a new center.
2. MOCD has proposed an additional $90,000 in Emergency Relief Pool
monies to fund the Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center. Mr.
Pon states that the Lavender Youth Recreation Center had not yet received
Planning Commission approval at the time of the CDBG grant application.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Anal-s si
19
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
The Budget Analyst recommends that 890,000 be placed on reserve, pending
submission of a program plan and budget details.
Recommendations
1. Place $90,000 of the requested 81,490,000 in FY J< -2001 CDBG funding
on reserve, as noted in Comment No. 2 above.
2. Approve $1,400,000 of the requested $1,490,000 in FY 2000-2001 CDBG
funding.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
20
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section VIII: Public Services Program - S4.972.779
The MOCD proposes to fund 80 Public Service programs in the amount of
$4,972,779 in 2000, a decrease of $151,010, or 2.9 percent, from the 1999
budget allocation of $5,123,789, which funded 77 Public Service programs.
Descriptions of the proposed Public Service Programs with new or increased
funding are as follows:
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY
2000-2001
Budget
Arab Cultural Center
Provides youth development services,
particularly to Arab American girls
$0
$30,000
$30,000
Chinese Newcomers Service Center
Provides bilingual job preparation,
information, placement and retention
services for immigrants
50,000
50,000
Central American Resource Center
Provides work permit application assistance
to low-income Latino immigrants
28,468
32,000
3,532
Milestones Human Services, Inc.
Provides job retention services, including
mentoring services to persons coming out of
the criminal justice system
44,557
44,557
Renaissance Parents of Success
Provides job placement, job readiness and
comprehensive vocational computer
education
133,042
133,489
447
Board of Si pf.rvisors
Budget Analyst
21
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase
in FY
2000-2001
Budget
San Francisco League of Urban
Gardeners
Provides housing counseling services,
including case management, prevention of
Section 8 conversions and tenant education
$33,000
$33,000
Toolworks
Provides a new training program for
individuals with disabilities
46.77D
46,770
Total new funding in FY 2000-2001
budget
$208,306
1999-2000 Programs not funded
in 2000-2001
(359,316)
Total
$161,510 1 $369,816
($151,010)
The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summary budgets noted
above, and has found that the requested amount is reasonable.
Recommendations
1. Approve funding of $4,764,473 out of the requested FY 2000-2001 CDBG
amount of $4,972,779 for continuing programs.
2. Approval of funding for new programs and increased funding for existing
programs in the amount of $208,306 a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
::
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section DC: Economic Development Program - $1.108.034
The MOCD proposes to allocate $1,108,034 to fund 12 Economic Development
Programs, a decrease of $188,000, or 14.5 percent, from the FY 1999-2000
budget allocation of $1,296,034.
Descriptions of the proposed Economic Development Programs that are new
or are receiving increased funding is as follows:
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase in
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Arriba Juntos
Provide home care training program
targeting paraprofessional health
services industry, particularly those
serving the home bound and elderly
830,000
$30,000
Mayors Economic Development
Pool
Pool for to provide loan technical
assistance for small business receiving
loans through other organizations
listed in this chart
100,000
100,000
Mission Economic Development
Association
Provide loan packaging and technical
assistance for small businesses, women
and/or minority-owned businesses
241,734
266,734
25,000
Northeast Community Federal
Credit Union
Provide neighborhood banking services
in the Tenderloin
50,000
50.000
Total New Funding in
FY 2000-2001
205,000
Decreased project funding in 2000-2001
from 1999-2000 levels
(393,000)
Total Increased (Decreased) Fundin
%
($188,000)
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
23
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
The Budget Analyst has reviewed detail- of the summary budgets noted above,
and has found that the requested amount is reasonable.
Comment
MOCD has proposed $100,000 for the Mayor's Office of Economic Development
to fund technical assistance services for small businesses in the Chinese
community. The Budget Analyst recommends that this $100,000 be placed on
reserve, pending submission of a program plan and luidget detail-.
Recommendations
1. Approve funding of $803,034 of the requested FY 2000-2001 CDBG amount
of $1,108,034 for continuing programs.
2. Place $100,000 of the requested S in FY 2000-2001 CDBG funding
on reserve, as noted in the Comment above
3. Approval of funding for new programs and increased funding for existing
programs in the amount of $205,000 a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
24
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section X: Microenterprise Assistance - $675,792
The MOCD proposes to allocate $675,792 to fund seven Microenterprise
Assistance Programs, a decrease of $121,808, or 15.2 percent, from the 1999
budget allocation of $797,600.
Descriptions of the proposed Microenterprise programs that are new or are
receiving increased funding are as follows:
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase in j
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
CAHEED
Provide family child care
entrepreneurship training,
particularly to TANF and CalWORKs
individuals
58,192
58.192
Decreased project funding in FY 2000-
2001 from FY 1999-2000 levels
$180,000
(180,000)
Total Increased (Decreased) Funding
($121,808)
The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summary budgets noted above,
and has found that the requested amount is reasonable.
Recommendations
1. Approve funding of $617,600 out of the requested FA* 2000-2001 CDBG
amount of $675,792 for continuing programs.
2. Approval of funding for new programs and increased funding for existing
programs in the amount of $58,192 a policy matter for the Board of
Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors
Budget An m ^ st
25
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section XI: Planning and Capacity Building - S812.415
The MOCD proposes to fund 18 agencies in the amount or $812,415 in FY
2000-2001, an increase of $37,055 or 4.8 percent, from the FY' 1999-2000
budget allocation of $775,360, which funded 12 agencies. This category
provides funds to agencies to support short- and long-range planning and
development.
Descriptions of the proposed Planning and Capacity Building programs with
new or increased funding are as follows:
Program
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrea-f >
in FY 2000-
2001
Bud net
African Immigrant and Refugee
Resource Center
Provides training for executive directors and
boards of directors of community-based
organizations in capacity building and
strategic planning
5 000
5 000
Booker T. Washington Community
Service Center
Funds would be expended on a feasibility
study to determine what type of facility
would best serve the needs of the
community.
15.000
15,000
Ch i n ese for Affi r motive Action
Funds would be expended on an assessment
and evaluation of current employment
services, and on a planning process,
resulting in improved services.
20.000
20,000
Friends of St. Francis Childeare Center
Funds would be expended on a strategic
planning process and training for the board
of directors of childeare center.
10.000
10.000
Geneva Valley Development Corporation
Funds would be expended on strategic
planning and board training for lead
organization of a collaborative multi-service
center.
20.000
20.000
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
26
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Program
1999
Budget
Proposed
2000
Budget
Increase
in 2000
Budget
Hearing Society for the Bay Area
Would conduct needs assessment of deaf and
hard of hearing San Franciscans
SO
$15,000
$15,000
Hearth Homes
Would conduct feasibility study of
developing a system for persons with
physical disabilities to access affordable
housing
12,000
12,000
Juma Ventures
Funds would be expended on several
business feasibility studies which would be
used to launch new business ventures,
employing low-income youth.
$19,500
19,500
Korean American Association of S.F.
Bay Area
Funds would be expended on a feasibility
study and action plan for the renovation of a
community center.
30,000
30,000
MOCD Planning and Capacity Building
Pool
Provides support for planning MOCD
projects and capacity building
284,386
327,967
43,581
MOH Planning and Capacity Building
Pool
Provides support for planning MOH projects
and capacity building
50,000
50,000
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
27
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit'
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Program
FY
1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FY
2000-2001
Budget
South of Market Childcare
Would undertake assessment and
establishment of ongoing strategic planning
process, including staff and board training to
build organizational capacity
(0
■ ooo
i 000
Lyon-Martin Women's Health Services
Funds would be expended on strategic
planning and board/staff development for
women's heath services organization.
5,000
5,000
Volunteer Center of San Francisco
Provides volunteer referrals to nonprofit
agencies
"00
i00
Women's Initiative for Self-Employment
Would undertake planning and testing
process to evaluate impact of Spanish-
language training and technical assistance
services to Latina entrepreneurs
21 150
21 1
Young Community Developers
Would undertake a strategic planning
process, including board/staff training and
drafting a fundraising and development plan
15,000
15,000
Total new and increased funding
in FY 2000-2001
$281,531
Programs funded in FY 1999-2000 not
funded or reduced in FY" 2000-2001
170)
Total
$775,360 I $812,415
$37,055
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
28
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comments
1. According to Ms. Anna Yee of MOCD, funding for planning and capacity
building is provided to community organizations on a one-time basis for one
of two purposes: (a) to assist with internal organizational development, such
as training staff in developing strategic plans, or (b) to assist in developing an
assessment or feasibility study for new types of projects. MOCD is
recommending new or increased funding for the organizations noted above in
FY 2000-2001 for such purposes.
2. Ms. Yee states the MOCD and MOH Planning and Capacity Building
Program Pools would provide funds during the fiscal year for staff training
and development to organizations that did not apply for such funds in the
CDBG grant application process. According to Ms. Yee, as of February 1,
2000, MOCD has expended $250,173 of the FY' 1999-2000 allocation of
$284,386. Ms. Yee states that MOCD expects to expend the remaining
balance of $34,213 ($284,386 less $250,1783) prior to June 30, 2000. As noted
above, MOCD has requested $327,967 in FY 2000-2001 for the MOCD
Planning Pool, which is $43,581 or 15 percent more, than budgeted in FY
1999-2000. The Budget Analyst recommends that $43,581 of the requested
FY 2000-2001 allocation of $327,967 be placed on reserve, pending
submission of an expenditure plan and budget details.
The requested allocation for the MOH Planning and Capacity Building
Program Pool in FY 2000-2001 is $50,000, which is unchanged from the prior
year allocation.
3. Ms. Yee states that HUD requires a one-year and five-year plan for the
Emergency Shelter Grant, CDBG, Home Investment Partnership, and
Housing Options for People With AIDS programs. Consolidated Planning
and Capacity Building Program Pool funds are used to pay for staff time to
prepare the required plan. The requested FY 2000-2001 allocation of $96,498
is $104,976 or 52 percent less than the FY 1999-2000 allocation of $201,474
because MOCD is preparing a one-year rather than a five-year report.
Recommendations
1. Place $43,581 of the requested FY* 2000-2001 MOCD Planning and
Capacity Building Pool allocation of $327,967 on reserve, as noted in
Comment No. 2.
Board of Supervisors
Budget analyst
29
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. Approve funding of $530,884 of the requested FY 2000-2001 CDBG amount
of $812,415 for continuing programs, including MOH, MOCD, and
Consolidated Planning Pools.
3. Approval of funding for new or increased programs in the amount of
$281,531 is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
30
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section XII: Program Administration - $4,416.605
The MOCD proposes to fund five City Departments in the amount of
$4,416,605 for Program Administration in FY 2000-2001, an increase of
$284,523 or 6.9 percent, from the FY 1999-2000 Program Administration
budget allocation of $4,132,082. The five City Departments include the
Controller's Office, the Mayor's Office of Community Development, the
Mayor's Office of Housing, the City Attorney's Office, and the Human Rights
Commission. The summary budget for Program Administration is as follows:
Proposed
Increase/
Department
FY 1999-
FY 2000-
(Decrease)
2000
2001
in FY
Budget
Budget
2000-2001
Budget
Controller
Audit and Indirect Costs
8124,015
$60,000
($64,015)
Audit and Indirect Costs (MOH)
60.000
60.000
Subtotal
$124,015
$120,000
($4,015)
Mayor's Office of Community
Development
Administration
2,291,132
2,421,582
130,450
Enterprise Community Program
(salary and personnel costs for
0.75 FTE)
126,962
54,671
(72,291)
Environmental Review
15,000
15,000
Office of Homeless (salary and
personnel costs for 1.0 FTE)
90,420
54,744
(35,676)
Disability Council
10.000
10.000
Subtotal
82,533,514
$2,555,997
$22,483
Mayor's Office of Housing
Affordable Housing Bonds
(salary and personnel costs for
1.2 FTEs)
129,329
129,329
Administration
1,159,553
1.101,038
(58,515)
Environmental Review
15,000
15,000
Lead (salary and personnel costs
for 2.45 FTEs)
185.241
185.241
Subtotal
$1,174,553
SI. 430,608
$256,055
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
31
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Department
FY 1999-
2000
Budget
Proposed
FY 2000-
2001
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
in FT
2000-2001
Budget
Citv Attorney's Office
MOCD
MOH
Subtotal
Human Riehts Commission
50,000
$50,000
'000
000
25.000
S50.000
260,000
000)
25.000
10,000
Total Program Administration
$4,132,082
$4,416,605
S2M..-.2:;
Comments
1. The FY 2000-2001 MOCD/MOH budget, which includes both M( ><"I> MOH
administration and program management costs, contains 72 budgeted full
time equivalent (FTE) positions, which is unchanged from the l'l FTEa
budgeted in FY 1999-2000.
2. For FY' 2000-2001 MOCD is proposing a budget of $2,036,482 for salary
and related personnel costs for 26.9 FTEs, out of a total MOCD
administration budget of $2,421,582. For FY 2000-2001, MOH is proposing a
budget of $916,794 for salary and related personnel costs for 12.65 FTEs, out
of a total MOH administration budget of SI. 101,038. MOCD and MOH
administration budgets therefore contain a total of 39.55 FTEs in FT 2000-
2001. Currently, MOCD has one vacant Special Assistant XII position. MOH
has no vacant positions.
3. In addition to the 39.55 FTEs noted in Comment No. 2. the FY 2000-2001
Program Administration budget includes 5.4 FTES in other MOCD and MOH
administration programs (Enterprise Community, Office of Homelessness,
Affordable Housing Bonds, and MOH Lead programs), for a total of 44.95
FTEs 1 (39.55 plus 5.4).
4. The proposed FY' 2000-2001 allocations for the MOCD Enterprise
Community Program (0.75 FTE) and the Office of Homeless (1.0 FTE) are
reduced from the FY' 1999-2000 allocations. The Enterprise Community
Program was allocated 2.0 FTEs in FY' 1999-2000. The Office of Homeless
The remaining 27.05 FTEs (72 less 44.95) are distributed among the various CDBG MOCD "MOH
programs discussed in the program sections of this report.
Board of Si/pervisors
Budget Analyst
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
was allocated 1.0 FTE in FY 1999-2000 for a Homeless Coordinator, budgeted
at $93,216 annually. The proposed FY 2000-2001 budget for the Office of
Homeless contains 1.0 FTE Special Assistant IX, budgeted at $54,744
annually.
5. In FY 2000-2001, MOH has allocated existing FTEs to the Affordable
Housing Bonds and MOH Lead programs that were not allocated in FY 1999-
2000, as follows:
• Allocation of $129,329 to fund 1.2 existing FTEs for the MOH Affordable
Housing Bonds program. Mr. Roger Sanders of MOCD states that MOH
is currently using staff time to administer Affordable Housing Bonds 2
projects and, additionally, expects to request appropriation of
approximately $40,000,000 in Affordable Housing Bonds proceeds in FY
2000-2001.
• Allocation of $185,241 to the MOH Lead program to fund 2.45 existing
FTEs. Allocation of the 2.45 FTEs was approved by the Board of
Supervisors in March of 1999, to provide in-kind matching funds for a
$3,000,000 grant provided by HUD to the City for the Lead Hazard
Reduction and Primary Prevention Program (File 99-0445).
6. In developing personnel costs associated with MOH program activities
(MOH Lead program and Affordable Housing Bonds program), MOH did not
include calculations for salary savings (5 percent budget reduction) or
negotiated salary increases (4 percent budget increase). Therefore, MOH
budgeted personnel costs should be reduced by a net amount of $3,146.
7. MOCD has budgeted $260,000 in FY 2000-2001 for the Human Rights
Commission, which is a $10,000 increase from the FY 1999-2000 budget of
$250,000. According to Mr. Sanders, the MOCD has not identified use of the
proposed $10,000 increase. The Budget Analyst recommends that the
proposed allocation be reduced by $10,000 from $260,000 to $250,000. The
$10,000 amount to be reduced can be reserved for other CDBG eligible
activities.
: Mr. Sanders states that Affordable Housing Bond proceeds do not provide an allocation for administrative
costs of the Bond programs.
Board of Supervisors
Bidget Analyst
37
Memo to Finance and Labor Committer
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Recommendations
1. Reduce the Program Administration allocation by $13,146 ($3,146 plus
$10,000), as noted in Comments 6 and 7, and reserve $13,146 for other CDBG
eligible activities.
2. Approve $4,403,459 for the FY 2000-2001 Program Administration
allocation.
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
34
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Section XIII: Program Income-Funded Activities- S8, 459. 275
HUD requires that anticipated CDBG-related program income to MOCD,
MOH, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) be allocated
through the submission of an annual application for CDBG funds. MOCD,
MOH, and SFRA anticipate program income in the amount of $8,459,275 in
FY 2000-2001 from the repayment of economic development loans, housing
rehabilitation loans, and land sales and rental income.
The $8,459,275 in program income would be expended as follows:
Program
Proposed FY
2000-2001 Budget
MOCD/MOH
Section 10S Loan Repayment
Loans exceeding $100,000 to businesses identified
as consistent with and supporting specific
economic development initiatives
Section 108 Daycare Repayment
Provides loans specified for childcare facilities
Capital Projects
Payment of predevelopment and other costs
associated with capital projects
Microenterprise Loan Program
Provides loans up to $10,000 to support
Microenterprises and self-employment enterprises
Small Business Loan
Provides loans up to S 100,000 to existing small
Businesses
Community Housing Rehabilitation Revolving
Loan Program
Provides financial and technical assistance to
Eligible low-income homeowners
$2,478,275
250,000
1,350,000
250,000
750,000
-1(1,000
Board of Supervisors
Budget Analyst
35
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Program
Proposed FY 2000-
2001 Budget
SFRA
Central Relocation Services
Provides relocation services to displ
Households
Low Income Housing
Provides funds for low-income housing activities
General Program Administration
Economic Development
Provides funds for economic d< I h as
Job training, in low income an
Planning India Basin
Provides funds for planning • the India
Basis area
Planning Mid Market
Provides funds for planning efforts for the
Market area
100,000
1.048,000
i 000
606,000
250,000
.000
Total Funding
S8.459.275
Comments
1. In fi' 1999-2000 the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) had
significant one-time expenses related to the debt service for Verba Buena
Center, including payment of Tax Allocation Bonds and Verba Buena Garden
Bonds. Such debt service, totaling $36,303,000. was funded from the SFRA
land sales and rental income.
2. The attached memorandum, provided by Ms. Pamela David of MOCD.
explains the proposed new Capital Projects Pool, totaling SI. 350. 000. This
pool of money would provide funds (a) for pre-development costs for non-
housing capital projects, such as community centers. 0b) assistance to
nonprofit organizations in obtaining building space, and (c) American with
Disabilities Act improvements to Brooks Hall. The Budget Analyst
recommends that $300,000 of the requested $1,300,000 Capital Projects Pool
for the Brooks Hall improvements be placed on reserve, pending submission
Board of Supervisors
Bidget Analyst
36
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
of budget details. Approval of this new pool of money, including monies to be
placed on reserve, is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
Recommendations
1. Reserve $300,000 for the Brooks Hall improvements, as noted in Comment.
No. 2.
2. Approval of $1,350,000 for the new Capital Projects Pool is a policy matter
for the Board of Supervisors.
3. Approve $7,109,275 ($8,459,275 of proposed Program Income-Funded
Activities, less $1,350,000) for the expenditure of MOCD, MOH, and SFRA
program income, as recommended by MOCD.
Board of Supervisors
Bi dget Analyst
37
4-06-2000 3 ; 1 0PM
prom mayor's homeless OFC 4is 2S2 3118 Attachment
Pape 1 of 4
MAYOR'S OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CTTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
WILLre LEWIS BROWN, JR.
MAYOR
PAMELA H. DAVID
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Severin Campbell, Bucket Analyst
Para David, MOClf
April 6, 2000
Capital Projects/MOCD Line Item
This is a new use of funds being established in this year's CDBG budget. It addresses two
pressing problems, and a third long-standing committment.
1 . Need for pre-development funding for capital projects.
We are engaged in numerous projects with the Mayor's Office of Housing and the
Redevelopment Agency, in which we are contributing to non-housing community space
attached to an affordable housing project The financing of affordable housing allows for
pre-development costs (design, engineering, planning, etc ) However, we have never
established a similar pool of funds to partner with our New and Existing Facility monies
(we cannot use those funds for "soft" costs).
For example, in housing projects in which we are (thru CDBG and/or our Section 108
Child Care Facility Loan Fund) helping construct child care centers, the developers and
child care providers have no source of funds to plan out the child care The developers
can not use affordable housing funds for non-housing portions of the development, and
neither the developers nor child care providers have had other avenues of support for
these necessary activities There are also stand-alone community facility projects which
require pre-development funds to increase their eventual effectiveness
Thus, this S1.35M line item provides, for the first rime, an allowable funding stream within
our CDBG program to cover such necessary expenditures and activities. We believe the
availability of these funds will expedite many of our capital projects, and result in better
design and eventual use of the various community facilities in which we invest capital
dollars. We believe we require no less than SI 50.000 per year for this, but may require, in
fact, considerably more.
25 Van Ness Avrre, Suite 700 • San Francisco. Caiform 94102 .(415) 2533100 FAX (415)2524110
TDD (415) 252-3107
38
4-06-2000 3:11PM FROM MAYOR'S HOMELESS OFC d IB 252 3118 Attachment
Page 2 of 4
Severin Campbell
April 6, 2000
Addressing the space/rent crisis facing community-based non-profit organizations
The huge shifts in S.F.'s commercial real estate market are heavily impacting many of the
non-profit organizations with whom we partner to carry out essential community
development activities. The availability of commercial space has dramatically decreased,
and market rate rents correspondingly have increased. Many of the community-based
non-profits funded by MOCD have been located in the mid-Market, SOMA and Mission
neighborhoods BECAUSE these districts afforded reasonable space and rent structures.
Many of the organizations have historically enjoyed long-term leases, and have been
paying relatively low rents (from less than Sl/sf to S3/sf). Yet, it is these neighborhoods
in which the commercial rental situation has most changed.
A recent survey conducted by MOCD revealed that over 75% of the grantees responding
lease their space, and have leases expiring within 12 to 36 months. In addition, more than
75% of those do not expect to be able to continue to lease their space without significant
rent increases, if allowed to stay at all. Rents in the SOMA and mid-Market Street areas,
pushed by the explosion ofdot.com companies, have now reached as high as S85/sf, rates
completely out of reach of even the most established, largest and successful non-profits,
much less smaller community groups.
Entire buildings, which have, for many years, housed numbers of non-profits, are being
sold to dot.com companies and/or being leased out to this industry sector as old leases
expire. 965 Mission Street, 1663 Mission Street, the Bay View Bank building — these are
just a few examples of buildings in which numerous non-profits, have lost or will shortly
be losing their space.
MOCD has been providing leadership on this issue for the past three months, convening
other City agencies, as well as the philanthropic and business communities to come
together and begin to strategize various solutions. We have done some very preliminary
research, and are helping shape further more detailed studies, engaging the non-profits
themselves in the process as well. Most importantly, we are assisting in providing a
framework for solutions, as there is not a "one size fits all" approach that will work.
Many organizations may be able to be clustered within one or several buildings in the mid-
Market area. But others have to remain in the communities that they are serving, i.e. the
South of Market, the Mission, the Bayview Some organizations need confidential sites,
some need open space attached. Nearly all have to be easily accessible by public transit
Community-based organizations need assistance in identifying their needs, and the right
direction for them to pursue. Some may be able to buy the buildings they're in; others
may be developing consortiums to purchase property. Still others may be looking to and
working with the philanthropic sector to develop non-profit space that could be leased at
below-market rates.
39
4-06-2000 3:11PM FROM MAYOR'S HOMELESS OFC 415 252 3116 Attachment
Page U of A
Severin Campbell
April 6, 2000
This line item establishes a flexible source of funds to help the non-profits address these
varied issues, and provide support as necessary It would be irresponsible for MOCD to
not develop a fluid, readily available and flexible funding stream to assist in addressing this
important issue. Our goal should always be to maximize the dollars going into programs,
and not see public or philanthropic dollars being eaten up by hugely escalating operating
costs. We believe it is prudent to have at least SI million available for this project, and
have budgeted accordingly.
Long-standing commitment to Brooks Hall Reuse Plan
The Mayor has requested that we reserve in our budget $300,000 for ADA improvements
at Brooks Hall Brooks Hall is being transformed into the Mayor's Center for Advanced
Technology, and requires significant ADA upgrades We are attaching a brief description
of the project and use of funds, prepared by DTIS
40
4-06-2000 3:11PM FROM MAYOR S HOMELESS OFC 415 252 3118 Attachment
Page h ot 4
City and County of San Francisco Department of Telecommunications
and Information Services
Liza M. Lowery Deru'se M. Brady
Director Deputy Director
Telephone: (415)554-0801
Policy, Planning and Compliance Division
Telephone: (415)554-4443 Fax: (415)554-4731
The Mayor's Center for Advanced Technology
(MCAT)
Budget information for FY 1999/2000:
Project Summary: The Mayor's Center for Advanced Technology (MCAT) is approximately a 30,000 square
foot technology center to be located in Brooks Hall. The MCAT will provide access to multimedia and
information technology including a video production facility, and provide technical training and support. The
requested funds will be used for ADA related upgrades per current code requirements.
Budget information: $ 300,000.00
Modify existing rest room facility to meet current ADA requirements:
$ 125,000.00
Replace non-compliant escalator with code compliant elevator to provide public access to MCAT.
$ 175,000.00
875 Stevenson Street, Fifth Floor • San Franci&co, CA 94103-0948
Office: (415)554-0800 • Facsimile: (415)554-4733
41
Attachment II
Page 1 of 8
a
"3
1
Ul
0,
o c
oo o
— o
» " -
2 =>
— a
o o
ooo — o «-» — » **> c
30 o o .o o oo --
5 2
:*: O r- O
- O « -
— ^ r- « r« M
oo — o «^ — C "■ c
C C C O 00 M O " O
fsaor-OOW'^r-o
— -r x — c
J> 8 £
^ © c
2 5
§p «-i o o
c — o r
- o »i
-' C l~-' -T O
.1 «-< —
—
P =. - a
5 -?
i e w «•» 5 2 5t
1 1 51 ; c S 5 «
> u "O a a
2 = oo c
- £ 5 -H • wi
H 9- - u
_2 o
yj t/i
Attachment II
Page~r~oF~8
— = = =
*• o c>" d o t' o" o" — " ~"
~o~ooooo
— . Oi —. —. —. <n o o =. c 5 o 2 o 2_ </| ~_ in q o c o = = o o in 5_ => =
5 3 5 5
5 5
o ■/-> ,c r- —
o o o
o o o a
o o o c o o o
o o c o o o o
o o o
3 2
55 25 5 52 c °
o o
-T -T O
2£
c o
3 g 2
< S
=o —
iK^s^ =
: j; -jj ;
u .2 c
III
= v. t/i z
<; n -
•_ c O ■—
= '-
Z Z >
. "• Z r-
— <
c o z
' U
> < < < < .
3 a
£«•£»•=
z = 1 I I £ 4
£ — '-» =0 C = •"
_ C u ■ a 3 _
2 a. S « vi n cn
> > > 1
I = c «
■ 3 i S
Attachment I '.
Page 3 of 8
= o £ §
>
* O
■a <=
© © © o » 1
o ©■ o *n in c
r o = i- oc -
©TOeOO«">'-l©00
e c ^i -r
^r-^«^^i*Nf*lOO'^
O © © rj oo © o
O 5 <-. 1 O C 3
O — . 5°. ». "* — . ~.
■C O* <*m' <^* 30 ©' C*
— — «-. c
£ <n o o g
00 V, o o ©
-T w-i O © O.
»-r oo o* o «-r
V. © ©
"1 = —
— ' -" t-"
<■*©©©©
VI o O
§i «-> o o
' o o
-T Tl V
— — v. c
.= s
u = = ° t -
••2 £
£ 4 c
ceo -=
5 £
B. O
c -^ ^i 5
= -= .= 5
i »r a
5« ":
u 3 g e c o o .H
3 I = > £
H ? - — -
- ~ ~ x —
s z z ■=< =
CO £■
<1 < < 25 B L
oooooo£oJ!-iSSSzzis£ce>>S
S o S
>- z >•
s l : s s
Attachment II
Page 4 of 8
=- e
U —
trS = g - ■
S§s S "i
o o o 5
O C — O T O
O — O O O
o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o c
o o c o c
o o o o o
o o = c
o © o o o — c
c o o o «i c- o
5 c
~ s >
<■'_ — —
^5's f s J =
2 <
£ -
„ -r. <" :-> g «■ Ji
= -5-m= a g "= 2 o is o •■= .e _ 5 E
E ■ "5 -S e 3 I «» "1 " r ~ = = 3 ^ .=
ill
£ < <
= •/•;_
£ a c o
9 o o s ■= £ ~
I -
•J >
u - i
- - V- S \A - 7. j;
3 J 5
III
>
_ i
\J — l/> X/i
a 3
3 5
g < u
c — —
UU2
II &
Attachment II
Page~T~oF~S
o o
o r-
O. r-_
2 = 3
8.8 i
C-T COOOr-oOC
-. — : "1 -
O Nttc
»-* r- o r- ~ r r-T'-j —
SOOQ'O-OO-OCTCOQO^OOO
© O 5* C -r - ■$ r*4 O.
O* O* C r-" =c" r»- yr. — " — * ri »' in c" C* o o" »n o"
Or- c-T-T'^'^ 0»~*r- -or-mO©^*"-* —
— - -r —
£
>
50 Si
i
E
c o K
s e- s
ill
— — z
if s
1
g .2 - e
—
7 "
|
,e
lis
1 i c
"EL z —
5
2 5 " z
£■ —
E
u
^3
c
5 v. - ^
c
=
O ° —
ill
c = ^
rj 3
3 s 2
^ — >
■2
si - - _
1^ = 1
21n
- I >■ 1 | 2 -I - I I 2 I
?ei^<? RES ci£ e" a
~ C U;
■= S >• o -
! *un^ i
Attachment II
Page 5 oT o
o o o o o
o o o o o
«gog„
o o
c c
o o
oooooooooooo
= = 00000
be ^ ^
000000 =
= 000
0000
o = = = o
o = = o =
= c* o
O OOOO
= = = = =
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
o 0000000
o 0000000
- .?
* I
£ E
o &
full
S Q OQ
M .- M
OT » 5 2
& 6 .= 5.
si ^ s S
i o J 3 - <
5 H O 5 5 a
= a
OT £
o S
- 5
= o
rs ^ c ot
• 5 < 5 — 5 — 3
X a. O C U — OT ot
- _ c
£ <
^l^lJMlJt
X —
- < - C > * -
5 >
C "3 *^ =
= 3
Attachment II
^age / of 8
- o —
o o o o c
~ = 5 S _
3 o^ a, a
»o; » •a
« M -a - a
S^ >
o — — "i
o o o
"-■ — a - 3
- T
" = = c
" | C T = = = =
-■ o o o o
c r -t c
so O r r
— r-\ o
— B> 5 -T
— " O ^ w"
60 =o <
•5 lllr §<•,,"» 5 =
| i § r " I S 'J 5 1 1|
T S" 5 J> . «3 = t; S "^ , =
;js|
Z Z 3 z
S S 2 35 £
is >
: S
il I
- 5 "J "3
E - s
_5 II I |t
3 I » > > ^ |
9 c _£ i ^ i r
~ ~ - - c E
— — =
- - E =
t =
— — -"" .■" J« J" .*" .- rt J" j» >. >.
Attachment II
Page 8 of 8
g - -
3 ? 2. -
> _
i. -
•a o si
S S =
o cT ='
"ooooS5o5
o o o
o o o
o o o
~ 3 cr — c ~ c
S'= g| 3 | = Sg |.af J
= — 3
22222ZMCAM v. w: yj y -r
City and County of San Francisco atyHaii
J J 1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
Finance and Labor Committee 94102^689
Meeting .Minutes
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano
Clerk: Mary Red
Wednesday, ApriM 9, 2000 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263
Regular Meeting
Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano.
DOCUMENTS DEPT.
Meeting Convened . „,„
APR 2 h 2000
The meeting convened at 10:07 a.m. SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
000328 [Public Financing and Disclosure for Campaigns]
Supervisor Ammiano
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for
public financing of election campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-10 to provide for
increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures.
(Fiscal impact; Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18;and Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550.10.)
2/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
4/5/00, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee. Supervisor Ammiano,
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ginny Vida, Executive Director, Ethics Commission; Naomi Starkman, Ethics
Commission; Claire Sylvia, Deputy City Attorney; Paul Melbostad, Ethics Commission. In Support: Jim ICnox, California Common
Cause (CCC); Rebecca Silverberg, Coalition for S. F. Neighborhoods (CSFN); Steven Currier; Marie Harrison; Bud Wilson, Greater West
Portal, Joan Girardot, President, CSFN; Bill Rangt'eld, CCC; Joan Kingery, CCC. Amendment of the Whole continued to April 12, 2000.
4/5/00, CONTINUED AS AMENDED.
4/12/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Ammiano; Ginny Vida, Executive
Director, Ethics Commission; Supervisor Bierman. Continued to April 19, 2000. See Files 999685 and 000687 prepared in committee as
ordinances.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Supervisor Ammiano. Amended to delete
Section 16.550-7; new title.
AMENDED.
Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for
public financing of election campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-6; 16.550-8 through
16.550-10, to provide for increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures.
(Fiscal impact; Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549. 18;and Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550-6; 16.550-8
through 16.550.10.)
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco I I'rini.J at 9:3$ I W on 4AI/00
Finance and Labor Committet
Meeting Minute
April I 'J. 2 111)11
000685 (Public Financing of Election Campaigns]
Supervisor Ainmiano
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative (ode to add Sections 16 549-1 through 16 549-18 to
provide for public financing of election campaigns.
(Fiscal Impact; Adds Section 16.549-1 through 16.549-18)
4. I2.'<)0, PREPAREDIN cuMMli II I \ S AN ORD1NANCI Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst;
Supervisor Ammiano; ( finny Yida. Executive Director. I thi< Supen isor Bierman Sec Pile 000328
4/12/00. com IN! II) Continued to April 19,2000.
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Supervisor Ammiano
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000687 [Public Matching Funds and Disclosure of Campaigns]
Supervisor Ammiano
Ordinance amending the Sun Francisco Administrative Code to add Sections 16 549- 1 through 16 549-18 to
provide for public matching funds to candidates foi local office who arc targeted by large independent
expenditure campaigns and to add Sections 16 550.1 through 16.550-10 to provide lor inci tire of
campaign contributions and expenditures
(Fiscal Impact; Adds Section 16.549-1 through 1(> 549-18 and adds Section 16 550.1 through 16.550-10)
4/12/00, PREPARED IN COMMITTEI vS AN ORDINANCI Heard in Committee speakers H lodge! Analyst;
Supervisor Ammiano; Oinnj \ ida, Executivt
4 12/00, CONTINUI I) Continued to April 19
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Ruse, Budget Analyst, Supt rvisor Ammiano Amended to delete
Section 16 550-7, new title
\MKNDED.
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code to add Sections 16 54°- 1 through 16 549-18 to
provide for public matching funds to candidates for local office who are targeted by large independent
expenditure campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-6; 1 6.550-8 through 16.550-10, to
provide for increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures
(Fiscal Impact; Adds Section 16.549-1 through 16.549-18 and adds Section 16.550.1 through 16.550-6;
16 550-8 through 16.550-10)
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
Cify and County of San Francisco
Printed at 9:50 A \f on 4/21/00
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000
000486 [Grant - Emergency Shelter Grant Program)
Mayor
Resolution approving the 2000 Emergency Shelter Grants Program and Expenditure Schedule and authorizing
the Mayor on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept, and expend a $890,000
entitlement under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
4/12/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of
Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; David
Pearson, Head Start; Dr. Norma Tecson, Filipino American Council; Janelle Pierce, Rosa Park Senior Center; Helen Davenport; Father
Louis Vitale, St. Boniface Neighborhood Center; Janet Gomes, S. F. Conservation Corp., Donna Bennett, Milestone; Miguel Wooding,
Eviction Collaborative; Devra Edelman, Haight Ashbury Food Program; Maurice, Bemal Heights Neighborhood Center; LaDawn Law.
SFUSD, Child Development Program Tami Rice-Mitchell, Charles Drew Center; Aurora Manmack; Betty H ; Lisa Gray, Young
Community Developers, Clarence Shaw, Housing Conservation and Development Corp.; Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall; Carlos
Romero, Mission Housing, Grant Din. Asian Neighborhood Design; Teresa Vergel; Dominado Purugganan, World War 1 1 Veteran;
Colleen Cassity, Juma Ventures; Gary K.; Gay Kaplan; Marian Do„j, Women for Self Employment; Donna Feingold, Edmund Tong,
Asian, Inc.; Mr. Young; Claudia Viek, Renaissance Entrepreneur Center. Continued to April 19, 2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of
Community Development; Jerry Levine, Vice Chair, C'tizen's Committee on Community Development; Ed
Tong, Asian Inc.; Enola Maxwell, Potrero Hill Neighborhood House; Supervisor Bierman; Devra Edelman,
Haight Ashbury Food Program; Helen Heifer, Hospitality House; Linda Robertson, S.F. League of Urban
Gardeners; Ben, Dorothy Day Community Center; Monique Martin, Director, Ingleside Community Center;
Janet Gomes, S.F Conservation Corp.; Julie Cavanaugh, Visitacion Valley Community Center; Onille Lester,
Youth for Service; Lefty Gordon, Ella Hill Hutch Center; Wanda Barnes, Walden House; Luis Flores;
Supervisor Yee.
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE.
Resolution approving the 2000 Emergency Shelter Grants Program and Expenditure Schedule and authorizing
the Mayor on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept, and expend a 5890,000
entitlement under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; placing $1 13,700 on reserve.
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman
Absent: 1 - Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco •* Printed at 9.H) Hi on tnim
Finance and Labor Committee Muting Minutes i/iril I'), 201)1)
000487 |Crant - HOME Programl
Mayor
Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City and Count) of San Francisco to apply for. accept and administer
a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and I rban Development for a total amount not to exceed
$7,115,000 for the HOME Program authorized under Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990.
Public Law Number 101-625, and approving the H( >ME program description -is described in the 2000 action
plan for San Francisco's consolidated plan. Indirect costs associated w ith the acceptance of these grant funds
will be paid by Community Development Block Grant funds.
3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I ah
4/12/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pam David, Direct flfceof
Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Deput) Director, ' ano. David
Pearson, Head Start; Dr Norma Tecson, Filipino American Council. Janelli :pon. lather
I ouis Vitale, Si Boniface Neighborhood (enter. Janet Gon* I kmna Bennett. Milestone, Miguel wooding.
Eviclton Collaborative. Devra Edelman, Haighi Ashbur) I ood Progi Bemal Heights Neighborhood ' enter. I aDaun I a».
SFUSD, Child Development Program Tami Rice-Mitchell, l Voung
Communit) Developers; Clarence Shaw, Housing i onservation and Developmenl ( 'orp . Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall
Romero. Mission Housing, Grant Din. Asian Neighborhood IX-sign, Teresa Vergel; Dominado Purugganan. World War 1 1 Veteran.
Colleen (.'assay, Juma Ventures. ( iary K . ( u> Kaplan. Marian Douh, Women for Sell I mploymcnt. Donna Icingold. I dmund Tnng.
Asian. Inc.. Mr Young. Claudia Viek, Rem reneur (enter Continued to Apnl 19, 2000
Heard in Committee Speakers Harve) Rme Budget Analyst, Pam David, Do
Community Development, Jerry Levine, Vice Chair, Citizen's Commune mi Communit) Development, Ed
Tong. Asian Inc.; Enola Maxwell, Potrero Hill Neighborhood Hon i 'nan. Devra Edelman,
Haight Ashhury Food Program, Helen Heifer, Hospitality House, Linda Robertson SI- . ban
Gardeners. Ben. Dorothy Day Community Center Kionique Martin Director, fngleside < ommunit} Center
Janet Gomes. S F Conservation Corp.; Julie Cavanaugh, Visitacion Valley Community Center. On die .
Youth for Service, Lefty Gordon, Ella Hill Hutch Walden House, Luis Fk ■
Supervisor )ee
RECOMMENDED bv the tollov%in K vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman
Absent: 1 - Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 9:50 AM on 4 71 00
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000
000488 [Grant - 2000 CDBG]
Mayor
Resolution approving the 2000 Community Development Program authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the
City and County of San Francisco, to accept and expend the City's 2000 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Entitlement from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and program
income generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to S33.734.275 which include indirect
costs of $160,000; and approving expenditure schedules for recipient departments and agencies for indirect
costs.
3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
4/12/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of
Community Development; Daryl Higashi. Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Supervisor Yee, Supervisor Ammiano; David
Pearson, Head Start; Dr. Norma Tecson, Filipino American Council; Janelle Pierce, Rosa Park Senior Center; Helen Davenport; Father
Louis Vitale, St. Boniface Neighborhood Center; Janet Gomes, S. F. Conservation Corp.; Donna Bennett, Milestone; Miguel Wooding.
Eviction Collaborative; Devra Edelman, Haight Ashbury Food Program; Maurice. Bemal Heights Neighborhood Center, LaDawn Law.
SFUSD, Child Development Program. Tami Rice-Mitchell. Charles Drew Center. Aurora Manmack; Betty H.; Lisa Gray. Young
Community Developers, Clarence Shaw. Housing Conservation and Development Corp.; Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall; Carlos
Romero, Mission Housing, Grant Din. Asian Neighborhood Design, Teresa Vergel; Dominado Purugganan, World War 1 1 Veteran;
Colleen Cassity, Juma Ventures; Gary K.; Gay Kaplan; Marian Doub, Women for Self Employment; Donna Feingold; Edmund Tong,
Asian, Inc.; Mr. Young; Claudia Viek, Renaissance Entrepreneur Center. Continued to Apnl 19, 2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harney Rose, Budget Analyst; Pam David, Director. Mayor's Office of
Community Development; Jerry Levine, Vice Chair, Citizen's Committee on Community Development; Ed
Tong. Asian Inc.; Enola Maxwell, Potrero Hill Neighborhood House; Supervisor Bierman; Devra Edelman.
Haight Ashbury Food Program; Helen Heifer, Hospitality House; Linda Robertson, S.F. League of Urban
Gardeners; Ben, Dorothy Day Community Center; Monique Martin, Director. Ingleside Community Center;
Janet Gomes, S.F. Consen'ation Corp., Julie Cavanaugh. Visitacion Valley Community Center; Orville Lester.
Youth for Senice; Lefty Gordon, Ella Hill Hutch Center; Wanda Barnes, Walden House; Luis Flares;
Supervisor Yee.
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE.
Resolution approving the 2000 Community Development Program authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the
City and County of San Francisco, to accept and expend the City's 2000 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Entitlement from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and program
income generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to 533,734,275 which include indirect
costs of $160,000; and approving expenditure schedules for recipient departments and agencies for indirect
costs; placing $533,581 on reserve.
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman
Absent: 1 - Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco 3 I'nm.d at 9.5$ t W ••„ 4 ;i 00
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
\prii I '). 201)11
000424 | Food Service - Application and Permit Fees]
Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco Municipal (ode ( Business mu\ I a\ Regulation Code) by
amending Section 24". 1 1 to revise permit Ices foi temporarj food operations at special events; amending Part
II of the San Francisco Municipal ( ode ( I rat lie Code) hy amending Section 806 to revise Department ol
Public Health permit fees for food operations at street fairs; amending Part II of the Municipal (ode (Health
Code) by amending Sections 45 1 and 452, to reorganize the section on applying for permits to operate a food
establishment, modify the definition of "special events," change the deadline lot applications lor temporary
food permits for special events; and impose an extra tee lor late applications for temporary permits. (Public
Health Department )
(Amends Business and Tax Regulation < ode Section 24'/ 1 1 . amends I raffic < ode Section N06: amends
Health Code Sections 451 and 452 )
3/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNI Dtol inanceand I abor Committee
i ONTINI II I) Continued to April 19
Heard in Committee Speakers Jack Hreslin, Department of Public Health Edward Evans, Tenderloin
Housiny,
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman
Absent: 1 - Ammiano
000565 |Fixing compensation for unrepresented employees, fiscal \ear 2000-2001. |
Ordinance fixing compensation lot persons employed by the City and County of San Francisco whose
compensations are subjeel to the provisions of Section AS 409 of the Charter, in classes not represented b> an
employee organization and establishing working schedules and conditions of employment and methods of
payment, effective July 1, 2000. (Human Resources Department)
(Fiscal impact.)
3/29/00, RE( I l\l I) AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee
4/7/00, SUBSTITUTED. Substituted b> Department ol Human Resources bcanng same title. -
4/7/00, ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst, Alice VUlagpmez Employee Relations,
Department of Human Resourt c i
RECOMMENDED b) the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee. Bierman, Ammiano
000524 [Authorizing expenditure of funds estimated at S4.2 10.000 for emergency repair of San Joaquin Pipeline
No. 31
Resolution authorizing expenditure of funds for emergency repair of corrosion in San Joaquin Pipeline N
of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. (Public Utilities Commission)
(Fiscal impact )
) :: 00, ki CI IVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Continued to April 26. 2000
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 9:50 AM on ^/ Oil
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 19, 2000
000568 [Lease of PIC land to Koret Foundation at an annual rental of S13. 211.00]
Resolution authorizing a 20-year lease of Public Utilities Commission land between the City and County of
San Francisco and Koret Foundation, in San Mateo County. (Public Utilities Commission)
3/29/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Gary Dowd. Public Utilities Commission.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000484 [Lease - Hotel Le Nain|
Supervisor Newsom
Resolution authorizing and approving the master lease by and between the City and County of San Francisco,
for the Department of Public Health, as tenant and Hc.jI Le Nam, LLC, as landlord, for the "Hotel Le Nam"
located at 730 Eddy Street.
3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han. ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Anne Kronenberg. Department of Public
Health; Supenisor Ammiano; Supenisor Yee; Edward Evans
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
000576 [Appropriating funds for landscape improvements to the Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse located
south of Justin Herman Plaza)
Supervisors Newsom, Bierman
Ordinance appropriating 5984,850 of the Neighborhood Development Special Revenue Fund balance to fund
the proposed Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse, for the Department of Recreation and Park for fiscal year
1999-2000.
(Fiscal impact.)
4/3/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Deborah Learner, Recreation and Park
Department. Amended to change name of Fund to "Downtown Park Fund"; place $309,000 on reserve and
reduce appropriation to S9S1.553.
AMENDED.
Ordinance appropriating S981.553 of the Downtown Park Fund balance to fund the proposed Mid-
Embarcadero Music Concourse, for the Department of Recreation and Park for fiscal year 1999-2000; placing
$309,000 on reserve.
(Fiscal impact.)
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
City- and County of San Francisco
Printed at 9: SO Of on 4 ?/ Oil
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000
000186 [Annual Joint Fundraising Drive |
Hearing to consider applications from various agencies to participate in the 2000 Joint Annual i undraising
Drive. (Finance and Labor Committee)
1/31/00, RECI IVI ii and ASSIGN! Dtol inanceand I »bor Committee
1/31/00 - From Community Health Charities
2/04/00 - From Mayor's Homeless Fund
2/08/00 - From Earth Share of California
2/22/00 - From Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc
2/22/00 - From United Way of the Hay Area and Affiliate
2/23/00 - From Local Independent Charities
3/01/00 - From International Service Agencies
3/13/00 - From Private Industry Council
6/00 From San Francisco Youth Fund
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budgt Analyst, Jill Lerner, Department of Administrative
Senices ; Supervisor Yee. Erin McGrath, Ma) or's Budget I >l!'n e ( 'edrii Yap. Department oj Children, Youth
and Families; Brenda Brown, Private Industry Conned. Everett Brandon, Chair, 2000 Joint Annual
Fundraising Drive
PREPARED IN COMMITTEE AS A RESOLUTION.
Resolution designating those agencies qualified to participate in the 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive foi
officers and employees of the City and Countj of San Francisco (Finance and I abor Committee)
RECOMMENDED by the follouinc vote:
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at II -42 a m
City and County of San Francisco 8 Printed at 9:50 AM on 4~2 100
o \si
^ss^S?,
CITY AND COUNTY -*=^^V-' 0F 5AN FRANC1SC0
POARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) ^o2-0461
April 13, 2000
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee
™ nw ' , , A , + DOCUMENTS DEPT.
FROM: ^Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting APR 1 8 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
Items 1. 2. and 3 - Files 00-0328, 00-0685. and 00-0687 PUBLIC LIBRARY
Note: Item 1, File 00-0328, was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at
its meeting of April 12, 2000.
Department: Ethics Commission
Item: Item 1 - File 00-0328
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through
16.549-18, to provide for public financing of election
campaigns, and to add Article XIIF, Sections 16.550-1
through 16.550-10, to provide for increased disclosure of
campaign contributions and expenditures.
File 00-0328 is referred to in this report and in
attached memorandum from the Ethics Commission as , r
"Amendment of the Whole" ordinance.
Item 2 - File 00-0685
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through
16.549-18, to provide for public financing of elect ion
campaigns.
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
File 00-0685 is referred to in this report and in the
attached memorandum as the "Ethics Commission
Proposal" ordinance.
Item 3 - File 00-0687
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through
16.549-18, to provide for public matching funds to
candidates for local office who are targeted by large
independent expenditure campaigns, and to add Article
XIIF. Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550-10, to provide for
increased disclosure of campaign contributions and
expenditures.
File 00-0687 is referred to in this report and in the
attached memorandum as the "Public Matching Funds for
Independent Expenditures" ordinance.
Description: The three proposed ordinances would provide varying
levels of public funds from a newly established Election
Campaign Fund to partially defray the election campaign
costs of eligible candidates for the Board of Supervisors.
Additional public funds would be available to qualifying
candidates who must also contest a run-off election.
Comments: 1. The Attachment, provided by Ms. Naomi Starkman of
the Ethics Commission, compares the three proposed
ordinances in terms of:
• their legislative provisions (Parts A through D);
• the projected costs to the Election Campaign Fund of
the three proposed public financing programs (Part E);
and
• the costs to the Ethics Commission of administering
each of the proposed ordinances (Part F).
2. Part E of the Attachment compares the projected costs
to the Election Campaign Fund for each of the three
proposed public financing programs:
(a) Under the "Ethics Commission Proposal" ordinance
(File 00-0685). the total estimated program costs for
the November 2000 General Election would be
between $1,007,000 and $2,728,000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
(b) Under the "Amendment of the Whole" ordinance
(File 00-0328), the total estimated program costs for
the November 2000 General Election would be
between $845,000 and $2,090,000 if voluntary
expenditure ceilings in the supervisorial districts are
not lifted (e°e Comment No. 4 below). This range of
costs is lower than the estimated range for the
"Ethics Commission Proposal" ordinance of
$1,007,000 and $2,728,000 (File 00-0685). However,
if voluntary expenditure ceilings are lifted, the costs
could be considerably different.
(c) Under the "Public Matching Funds for Independent
Expenditures" ordinance (File 00-0687), the total
estimated program costs for the November 2000
General Election would be between $432,500 and
$1,045,000 if voluntary expenditure ceilings in the
supervisorial districts are not lifted. This range of
costs is lower than the estimated ranges for either of
the other two proposed ordinances. However, if
voluntary expenditure ceilings are lifted, the costs
could be different. However, the potential increase
in costs would be less than under the 'Amendment of
the Whole" ordinance (File 00-0328) due to the more
limited conditions under which the voluntary
expenditure ceilings can be lifted and the lower
maximum public funding levels available (see
Comment No. 4 below).
3. All three proposed ordinances would incur additional
costs for the Ethics Commission to administer a public
financing program. As explained in Part F of the
Attachment:
• the "Ethics Commission Proposal" ordinance (File 00-
0685) would incur additional administration ousts of
approximately $137,000; and
• the other two proposed ordinances would incur
additional administration costs of approximately
$177,000.
According to Ms. Ginny Vide of the Ethics Commission,
the Ethics Commission has not included m its FY ^000-
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2001 budget request any additional funding for the new
Ethics Commission functions related to the proposed
public financing program. Ms. Vida states that if one of
the proposed ordinances is approved, then the Ethics
Commission would request additional FY 2000-2001
funding through a supplemental appropriation.
1. Article XIIE, Section 16.549-9 of both the "Amendment
of the Whole" ordinance (File 00-0328) and the "Public
Matching Funds for Independent Expenditures"
ordinance (File 00-0687) provides for the lifting of the
voluntary expenditure ceilings in the supervisorial
districts.
Under the Amendment of the Whole" ordinance (File 00-
0328), the voluntary expenditure ceiling can be lifted
under two conditions. First, the voluntary >xpenditure
ceiling can be lifted if a candidate who is not participating
in the public financing program receive- contributions,
has cash on hand, or makes campaign i xpenditures in
excess of the applicable voluntary expenditure ceiling of
$75,000 for a genera] election and >i!n,000 for a run-off
election. Second, the voluntary expenditure ceiling can be
lifted if independent expenditures are made again.-t any
rticipating in the public financing program,
or in support of any opposing candidate running in the
same supervisorial district, and such independent
expenditures exceed in the aggregate 25 percent of the
applicable voluntary expenditure ceiling. If the volun*
expenditure ceiling is lifted in a supervisorial district for
either of the above reasons, a candidate participating in
the public financing program would be entitled to receive
up to an additional $75,000 for a general election and up
to an additional $40,000 for a run-off election.
Under the "Public Matching Funds for Independent
Expenditures" ordinance (File 00-0687). additional public
funds are made available to candidates only if
independent expenditures are made against a candidate
participating in the public financing program, or are
made in support of an opposing candidate running in the
same supervisorial district, and those expenditures exceed
in the aggregate 25 percent of the spending limit, then the
voluntary expenditure ceiling can be lifted. If the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
voluntary expenditure ceiling is Lifted in a supervisorial
district for that reason, a candidate participating in the
public financing program would be entitled to receive up
to an additional $37,500 for a general election, and up to
an additional $20,000 for a run-off election.
5. According to Ms. Julia Moll of the City Attorney's
Office, the three proposed ordinances would provide
authority for the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to
appropriate sufficient monies to (a) an Election Campaign
Fund established under the approved ordinance to
partially defray the election campaign costs of all eligible
candidates, and to (b) the Ethics Commission for
administrative costs related to the public financing
program. However, according to Ms. Moll, such
appropriations could only be required by a voter-approved
Charter amendment. Ms. Moll states that this is because
only voter-approved Charter amendments, rather than
ordinances, can limit the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors and the Mayor regarding annual
appropriations. Ms. Moll states that if the Mayor and the
Board of Supervisors do not appropriate sufficient funds,
the public financing program would not provide any funds
to eligible candidates.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed alternative ordinances is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
San Francisco
Ethics Commission
Attachment
Page 1 of 4
1390 Market Street, Suite 801
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone 554-9510 Fax 554-8757
Finance Committee Meeting
April 19, 2000
Public Financing of Election Campaigns
Comparison of Ethics Commission Proposal with Amendment of the Whole
and with Public Matching Funds for Independent Expenditures
A. Eligibility Requirements
ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL
AMENDMENT OF THE
WHOLE
PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS
FOR INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES
Seek election to the Board of Supervisors
and be eligible to hold the office sought.
Same.
Same.
Receive at least $5,000 in "qualifying
contributions" between S10 and SI 00 each
from at least 50 individual (non-corporate)
contributors who are San Francisco
residents.
Receive at least S5.000 in
•qualifying contributions" of $100
or less from individual (non-
corporate) contributors who are San
Francisco residents.
Same as Amendment of the
Whole.
Be opposed by another candidate who is
eligible to receive public financing, or has
received contributions or made
expenditures which equal or exceed
S5.000.
Be opposed by another candidate
who is eligible to receive public
financing, or has received
contributions or made expenditures
which equal or exceed S10.000
Agree to limit personal spending and loans
to 510,000 per election.
Agree to limit personal spending
and loans to SI 0.000 per election
(but this requirement Joes not
apply if the voluntary spending
limits are lifted).
Same as Amendment of the
Whole.
Agree to limit campaign spending to
$75,000 for the general election and
$20,000 for the run-off election, if one is
required.
Same.
Same.
Agree to participate in at least one debate.
Same.
Same.
San Francisco Ethics Commission
Finance Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
April 19. 2000
Pace I
Attachment
Page 2 of 4
B. Disbursement of Public Funds in General Election
ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL
AMENDMENT OF THE
WHOLE
PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS
FOR INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES
The maximum amount of public funds a
candidate would receive in the general
election is 545,000.
The maximum amount of public
funds a candidate would receive in
the general election is 537,500.
(Additional public funding would be
provided if the SDending limits are
lifted. See Item D below.)
See Item D below.
Upon certification of eligibility, the
candidate would receive a payment of
S5.000 from the Fund. Thereafter,
candidates would receive 54 from the Fund
for every SI of matching contributions
raised by the candidate, up to an additional
520,000. Thereafter, candidates would
receive 51 from the Fund for every 51 of
matching contributions raised by the
candidate, up to an additional 520,000 in
public funds.
Upon certification of eligibility, the
candidate would receive 52 from the
Fund for every 51 in matching
contributions raised by the
candidate. Until 15 days before the
election, a candidate may submit a
request for public funds each time
the candidate raises 55,000 in
matching contributions. Within 15
days before the election, a
candidate may submit a request for
public funds every time the
candidate raises 51,000 in
matching contributions.
Funds only disbursed if the
voluntary spending limits are
lifted due to independent
expenditures. (See Item D
below.)
C. Disbursement of Public Funds in Run-Off Election
ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL
AMENDMENT OF THE
WHOLE
PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS
FOR INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES
The maximum amount of public funds a
candidate would receive for the run-off
election is 517,000.
The maximum amount of public
funds a candidate would receive for
the run-off election is 520,000.
(Additional public funding would be
provided if the spending limits are
lifted. See Item D below.
Same as Amendment of the
Whole.
Each candidate who qualifies for a run-off
election would receive a payment of
55,000 from the Fund. Thereafter, each
candidate would receive S4 from the Fund
for every 51 of matching contributions
raised by the candidate, up to an additional
512.000 in public funds.
Each candidate who qualifies for a
run-off election would receive a
payment of 520, 000 within three
days following the general election.
Funds only disbursed if the
voluntary spending limits are
lifted due to independent
expenditures. \ See Item D
below, below )
San Francisco Ethics Commission
Finance Commute; of the San Francisco Board of Surer
Page :
Attachment
Pa?e 3 of 4
P. Disbursement of Public Funds if the Spending Limits Arc Lifted
ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL
AMENDMENT OF THE
WHOLE
PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS
FOR INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES
The Ethics Commission's proposal does
not provide for a lifting of the voluntary
spending limits or additional public funds
in the case of a high-spending opponent.
If a nonparticpating candidate
receives contributions, has cash on
hand or makes qualified campaign
expenditures in excess of the
voluntary spending limit, the
spending limit is lifted and the
participating candidate is entitled to
receive SI in public funds for every
SI in private funds raised or spent
by the nonparticipating candidate in
excess of the spending limit. The
maximum amount to be awarded
under these circumstances in the
general election may not exceed
575,000 per candidate. The
maximum amount to be awarded
under these circumstances in the
run-off election is 540,000 per
candidate.
This proposal does not provide
additional public matching funds
if the voluntary spending limits
are lifted due to financial activity
of a nonparticipating candidate
The Ethics Commission's proposal does
not provide for a lifting of the voluntary
spending limits or additional public funds
in the case of independent expenditures.
If independent expenditures against
any participating candidate, or in
support of any opposing candidate
running in the same supervisorial
district, exceed in the aggregate
25° o of the spending limit, the
spending limit is lifted and any
targeted participating candidate is
entitled to SI in public funds for
every S 1 in independent expenditure
above 25° o of the spending limit.
The maximum amount to be
awarded under these circumstances
in the general election may not
exceed 575,000 per candidate. The
maximum amount to be awarded
under these circumstances in the
run-off election is 540, 000 per
candidate.
If independent expenditures
against any participating
candidate, or in support of an>
opposing candidate running in
the same supervisorial district,
exceed in the aggregate 25°/o of
the spending limit, the spending
limit is lifted and any targeted
participating candidate is entitled
to SI in public funds for every
SI in independent expenditure
above 25% of the spending limit.
The maximum amount to be
awarded under these
circumstances in the general
election may not exceed 137,500
per candidate. The maximum
amount to be awarded under
these circumstances in the run-
off election is 520,000 per
candidate
San Francisco Ethics Commission
Finance Committee ot'ihe San Francisco Board of Supei
Apr;
Attachment
Page 4 of h
E. Projected Election Campaign Fund Budget
ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL'
Year
Range of Costs
2000
S 1,007.000-52.728.000
2002
S467.000-S 1.240.000
AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE"
Please see footnote 2 below for more
information about the cost of this
program re: lifting of the voluntary
spending limits.
Year
2000
2002
Range of Costs
5845,000 - 52.090.000
5395,000 - 5950.000
PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS
FOR INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES 3
Year j Range of Costs
2000
2002
5432.500-51,045,000 |
5207,500 - 5475,000 1
2004
5557,000 -Sl.488,000
2004
5470,000-51.140.000
2004
5245,000 - 5570.000
'in the 2000 general election, all 1 1 Board seats will be vacant. After the 2000 general election, the clerk of
the Board will determine by lot whether the supervisors elected from the even or odd-numbered districts will
have terms expiring in two or four years Accordingly, there will be either 5 or 6 vacant seats in 2002 and
2004. For purposes of these estimates, it is assumed that there will be 5 vacant seats in the 2002 general
election and 6 vacant seats in the 2004 general election. Commission staff developed assumptions as to how
many candidates will participate in the program in the next three general elections: 1) between 2 and 4
candidates per district will receive public financing in the general election; and 2) between 1 and 2 candidates
per district will receive public financing in the run-off election.
"The Commission based the cost estimates of the Amendment of the Whole on the above-described
assumptions. The projected Fund budget for the Amendment of the Whole does not reflect additional public
funds which could be disbursed if the voluntary spending limits are lifted. These costs could vary
dramatically and are difficult to determine. However, if in the 2000 election, an average of \ candidate per
district qualifies for full funding in both the general and run-off elections to offset independent spending or
high spending by an opponent, it could cost the City an additional total of SI .265.000 for all 1 1 districts.
3 Because the threshold to qualify for public funds in this proposal is quite high ($15,000), Commission staff
estimate that fewer candidates will qualify for additional public funds. For this reason, staff determined
between 1 and 2 candidates per district will receive public financing in the general election and 1 candidate
per district will receive public financing in the run-off election. For purposes of these estimates, it is assumed
that there will be 5 vacant seats in the 2002 general election and 6 vacant seats in the 2004 general election.
F. Projected Administrative Costs to the Ethics Commission
ETHICS COMMISSION
PROPOSAL
AMENDMENT OF THE
WHOLE 4
PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS
FOR INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES
Item
Amount
Item
Amount
Item ! Amount
Salaries of 2 FT
5100,000
Salaries of 3 FT
5135,000
Salaries of 3 FT 1 SI 35,000
professional
employees
professional
emplovees
professional
employees
Salary of 1 FT
517,000
Salarv of I FT
517,000
Salary of 1 FT
S17.000
clerical employee
@ 6 months
clerical
employee @ 6
months
clerical
emplo>c
months
Non-personnel
costs
520,000
Non-personnel
costs
525.000
Non-personnel
costs
S25.000
Total
5137,000
Total
S177,000
Total i SI 77,000
4 These costs will be increased due to additional mandates proposed by the Amendment to the Whole
■ rancisco Ethk
Finance Committee of the San Fran
■
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 4 - File 00-0486
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at itfl
meeting of April 12. 2000.
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Grant Period:
Description:
Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD)
Resolution approving the FY 2000-2001 Emergency Shelter
Grants Program and expenditure schedule and authorizing the
Mayor, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to
apply for, accept, and expend a $890,000 entitlement under the
Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
$890,000
Federal Department of Mousing ami Urban Development (HID)
July 1. 2000 through June 30, 2001
The HUD Emergency Shelter Grants Program was
established under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeli 'ance
Act in July of 1987. The program is designed to as-
improving the quality of existing emergency shelters for the
homel making available additional emergency shelters,
and (c) meeting the costs of operating emergency shelters. The
goal of the program is to provide certain essential social services
to homeless individual- so that those persons have access to the
suppoi eded to improve their .situations.
The Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) is
responsible for admin: ind monitoring the Emergency
Shelter Grants Program (ESGP). Funds from the ESGP are
ted under five categories, three program categories
ntial and Social Services. Maintenance and Operating
Expenses, and Homeless Prevention Services) and two other
dories (MOCD Administration and an Emergency Shelter
Grants Pool). MOCD proposes to allocate grant funds in the
amount of §890,000 from the FY 2000-2001 ESGP grant (which is
$1,000 less than the 1999 ESGP allocation of $891,000) to 14
projects in the three program categories noted above, to
administrative costs, and to the Emergency Shelter Grants Pool.
Approval of the proposed resolution would (a) authorize the
MOCD to accept and expend the FA' 2000-2001 Emergency
Shelter Grant and (b) approve the FY 2000-2001 Emergency
Shelter Grants Program and expenditure schedule.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
The proposed summary budget for the ESGP allocation of
$890,000 is as follows:
Increase/
Proposed
j (Decrease)
FY' 1999-
FY 2000-
from FY
Prosram
2000
2001
1999-2000
Budget
Budget
Budget
American Red Cross
$68,000
$68,000
$
Asian Women's Shelter
56,000
56,000
.
Catholic Charities
25.000
25,000
.
Compass Community Services
50,000
50,000
.
Dolores Street Community Services
41.000
48,000
7,000
Episcopal Community Services
40,000
40,000
Friendship House Association
36.900
36,900
Hamilton Family Center, Inc.
43,000
50,000
7,000
La Casa de las Madres
77.300
77,300
.
Larkin Street Youth Center
54,000
54,000
.
Metropolitan Community Foundation
47,000
47.000
St. Vincent de Paul Society
20,000
20,000
.
Swords to Plowshares
38,600
38,600
.
United Council of Human Services
96,000
96,000
.
Emergency Shelter Pool
120,350
138,700
18.350
MOCD Administration (5%)
44.500
44,500
-
Programs Not Funded in FY 2000-2001
80.350
.
(80.350)
Total
$891,000
$890,000
($1,000)
The Attachment, provided by MOCD, contains the ESGP FY"
1999-2000 budget and FY* 2000-2001 proposed budget, and a list.
including descriptions, of the above programs. Of the programs
noted above, one program is new and 3 have increased funding
from the FY 1999-2000 ESGP budget, for a total of increased
funding of $79,350. Additionally, programs funded in FY* 1999-
2000, totaling $80,350, were not funded in FY 2000-2001. The
total ESGP allocation in FY* 2000-2001 of $890,000 is $1,000 Less
than the FY* 1999-2000 allocation of $891,000.
The Budget Analyst has reviewed budgets for four programs with
increased funding. (Hamilton Family Center, Dolor
Community Services, the Metropolitan Community Foundation,
and the Emergency Shelter Pool). These programs are disc
below.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Hamilton Family Center. Inc. $50,000
The proposed budget of $50,000 for Hamilton Family Center, Inc.
is $7,000 or 16.3 percent more than the FY 1999-2000 allocation
of $43,000. According to Mr. Jon Pon. the proposed allocation
would be used for rent at L525 Waller Street. Mr. Pon states that
the rent paid by Hamilton Family Center at 1525 Waller Street
is currently $74,784 annually (9,750 square feet at $0.64 per
square fool per month), and that, on July 1. 2000, the rent will
incre.i Q annual rent increase of $5,988 or 8
percent
Dolores Street Community Services -.000
According to Mr. Pon. $48,000 has been allocated to Dolores
Street Community Services in FY' 2000-2001, which is $7,000, or
17 percent, more than the FY* 1999-2000 allocation of $41,000.
Mr Pun states that increased funds in the amount of $7,000
would be used to partially fund the program director and case
manager positions in the employment advocacy program for
Latino working homeles
Metropolitan Community Foundation 1 000
The Board of Supervisors approved allocation of $23,416 of
Emergency Shelter Pool funds in December of 1999 for the
Metropolitan Community Foundation's - Mission High Shower
Project for homeless p. 19-21 14). In FY ^000-2001.
MOCD recommends an allocation of $47,000 to the Metropolitan
Community Foundation for the continuation and expansion of
Mission High School Shower Project. The Mission High School
Shower Project is funded by private and non-City donations and
grants, as well as the subject $47,000 in ESGP monies, for a total
budget of- - The Budget Analyst has reviewed details for
the proposed budget and finds them to be reasonable.
Emergency Shelter Pool SI 38. 700
MOCD has proposed allocating S138.700 in ESGP funds I
Emergency Shelter Pool in FY" 2000-2001. which is $18,350 or 15
percent more than the $120,350 allocated in FY" 1999-2000. Mr.
Pon states that the increased funds are necessary because the
1 The Dolores Street Community Services program's proposed FY 2000-2001 budget has budgeted
for 1.0 FTE Case Manager at S30.000 annually and 1.0 FTE Program Director at S37.000 annually.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Revised 4/11/2000 - File 00-0486
Required Match:
Indirect Costs:
Comments:
Recommendations:
City anticipates a reduction in other Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act funds in FY 2000-2001 compared to FY
1999-2000. 2 The increased funds in the Emergency Shelter Pool
would be used to provide emergency homeless shelter services in
the winter of 2000-2001. The Budget Analyst recommends
placing Emergency Shelter Pool funds in the amount of $138,700
on reserve, pending submission of a program plan and budget.
HUD requires one-to-one matching funds, totaling $890,000. for
the ESGP funds. According to Ms. Julie Brenman of DHS, such
matching funds have been budgeted in the proposed FY 2000-
2001 DHS budget.
None provided by the ESGP grant.
1. As noted above, the subject ESGP grant would allocate funds
to (a) 14 nonprofit agencies, Ob) to administrative costs and (c) to
the Emergency Shelter Pool. The Budget Analyst recommends
approval of existing programs with the same funding level as the
prior year. Approval of programs with increased funding is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the
Budget Analyst recommends placing $138,700 allocated to the
Emergency Shelter Pool on reserve, pending submission of a
program plan and budget details.
2. The MOCD has prepared a Disability Access Checklist, which
is on file with the Clerk of the Board.
1. Approve funding in the amount of $829,000 ($890,000 less new
or increased funding of $61,000).
2. Of the $829,000, reserve $138,700 for the Emergency Shelter
Pool, as noted in Comment No. 1.
3. Approval of funding in the amount of $61,000 for expanded
programs including a $7,000 increase for Dolores Street
Community Services, a $7,000 increase for Hamilton Family
Center and $47,000 for the Metropolitan Community Foundation
to expand the Mission High School shower project is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervis
2 According to Ms. Julie Brenman of the Department of Human Services (DHS1 HI
89,000,000 to DHS in Federal McKinney funds in FY 1999-2000. Ms. Brenman states in FY 2000-
2001. DHS expects to receive S6. 900. 000 in McKinney funds, a $2, 100.000 decrease from FY L999-
2000. Such funds are used to provide supportive and transitional housing and social sen
homeless San Franciscans.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Mayors Office of Community Development and Mayor's Office of Housing
Expenditure Schedule 2000 CDBG, ESG and HOME Page I ol" I 4/5/00 1 2 43 PM
Attachment
Page I of 3
Agency 1 FY99 FY0O RQ FYOO Ret ...-.-■
Enier°eocv Shelter Gram
Amencan Red Cross Bav Arex SF
68.001
. , ,
,.- H 1
Asian Women's Shelter
56.001
56 01
56 irx
Catholic Chanties /St. JoseDh's Village
25.000
25.75C
25.001
Comoass Communirv Services
50,00(
50.00(i
Dolores St Communirv Services/So Van Ness Loc
4 1 .000
4 i
48.000
i
Ementencv Shelter Pool
120.350
138.700
-
Episcopal Communirv Services of SF
M),00i
• ■ 101
40.000
Fnendshm House Association of. Amencan Indians. Inc
36.900
fi I
16 ),„
Hamilton Familv Center. Inc
,- i i
,
50.000
1
La Casa de ias Maarcs
■- 100
■
1 1 '
Larkin Street Youth Center
54.000
■
-■ 4.001
Metropolitan Communirv Foundation
"
6
47 01 ii
j7.0f>
MOCD (5% Admin)
u -
la 772
44 5O0
St Vincent DePaul Society
20.000
20 000
Swords to Plowshares
38.600
46.764
ii t500
United Council of Human Services i The i
96.000
'
; ii.i
Central City HosDitalirv House
i ■ fj
' '
Volunteer Legal Services Program Sr Bar Assn
50.000
-
'1
Asian Law Caucus
Booker T Washington Communitv Service '-'enter
50 Di]
1]
Metropolitan Communirv Foundation
Tides Center. SF Eviction Detensc Collaborative
'
Central Cir. Hospitality House fOrlando)
M
Salvation Armv i Lifeboat Lodcel
TOTAL EMERGENCY SHELTER
40S.564
• .. i
- 1
1
Attachment
Pige~T~oF~3
Emergency Shelter Grant Program
Activity Name and Location
Program Description
Provosed Bud*
Emergency Shelter Grants
These projects are directed soecincaih towards seri'ces extended towards homeless indi-ndtmi and famuies.
American Red Cross (Bay .Area)
35 2nd Street
Provide back rcat grants to eligible singie non- 563.000
disabled adults :o prevent eviction
2. Asian Women's Shelter
(Confidential)
Provide shelter and support services to battered
women and their children
Sfc.:oe
3 . Catholic Charities
31-t Mission Street. Mezzanine
Provice security deposits and other assistance
to those in danger of eviction.
S25.0C0
4 . Compass Community Services
1 1 1 Tavlor Street
Provide emergency shelter to homeless families Sf 0.000
Dolores Street Community Services
938 Valencia Street
Provide employment development services :o
homeless immigrant latino men
S4S.000
6. Episcopal Community Services of Sr
201 3th Street
Provice shelter services, comprehensive case
management and on-site job counse
SJ
■ . Friendship House Association of American Indians Provide shelter to homeless American Indian
on , r , acuits seek: na treatment and counseling for
80 Julian Avenue - -
aicohol/substar.c: abuse addictions
:
S. Hamilton Family Center. Ir.c
1:2: Waller Street
• rrrrerr-rr.:;- :n;:tcr lo homeless t'arnii
Attachment
Page 3 of 3
Emergency Shelter Grant Program
Activity Same and Location
Program Description
Prooosed Budget
9 . La Casa dc las Madrcs
(Confidential)
Provide shelter and 24-ho^ bilingual crisis
line, drop-in program, and counseling services
to bartered \vorr"-n ana their children
st-.:oo
10. Larkin Street Youth Center
533 Central Avenue
Provide emergency shelter and xiated cervices
to runawav vouth asc
1 . Metropolitan Community Foundation
3750 18th Street
Provide showers and personal hygjene rerviccs
as pan of Mission High School Shower Project
to the homeless
12. St. Vincent de Paul Society of Sr
(Confidential)
Provide emergency shelter for bartered women
and their child
'
Swords ;o Plowshares
1063 Market Sire::
Provide case management assistance :o
homeless and at-risk veterans to access and
protect disability income and medical benefits
; Council of Human S<
2111 Jennings Street
Prov.ce services to homeless or at-risk of
becoming homeless, including pantry program,
food oag program, hot meal program
crisis :ounse:i.-.e and
■ ;m:is
Emergency She/.er ?joi
CoMOCD
.--.erger.cy funding for homeless
• ear
■
16. MOCD/ESG Admini
VtOCD
if ESC Proe'am
GRA>D TOTAL EMERGENCY SHELTER PROGRAM
5390.000
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 5 - File 00-0487
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its
meeting of April 12, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Grant Period:
Source of Funds:
Project:
Description:
Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH)
Resolution (a) authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept
and administer a grant from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development for a total amount not to
exceed $7,115,000 for the Home Program authorized under
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990,
Public Law Number 101-625, and (b) approving the Home
Program description, as described in the 2000 Action Plan
for San Francisco's Consolidated Plan. This resolution
states that indirect, costs associated with the acceptance of
these grant funds will be paid by Community Development
Block Grant funds.
Not to exceed $7, 115,000
July 1. 2000 through June 30, 2001
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)
Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program
The HOME Program is authorized under title II of the
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (Public Law
Number 101-625). The Act provides funds for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of privately-
owned affordable housing.
In August of 1994, HUD issued regulations requiring that a
Consolidated Plan be developed for (a) the HOME Program,
(b) the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program, and (c) the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program. In response, MOH ha^
developed a "Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for the City and
Countv of San Francisco, Draft for Public Review" 1 . The
1 The "Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Draft for Public
Review", dated March 30, 2000. contains the City's plans and programs for privately-owned housing,
totaling §82,388,311, as shown on the following page. The final 2000 Action Plan will reflect the
program funding requests approved by the Board of Supervisors in this subject HOM
legislation, and legislation being considered by the Finance and Labor Committee (Files 00-0 i
00-0488).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
MOH advises that the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan, when
finalized to reflect the program funding to be approved by
the Board of Supervisors for the three programs noted
above, will function as the MOH grant application for
HOME program funding from HUD. MOH and the Mayor's
Office of Community Development (MOCD) must submit
the 2000 Action Plan to HUD by May 15, 2000. According
to the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for privately owned
housing development and administrative costs, the MOH
anticipates receiving $7,115,000. which is $38,000 or 0.5
percent more than the 1999 allocati' ~~ 000.
Projected funds for the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for
privately owned housing developments t 1,835,
with the funding sources identified on page of our report
including 76 of the proposed $7,115,000 HOME
grant allocation -' and v ther sources of fundin_
follows:
Funding Source
Amount
Federal Funds
HOME
$6,197 71
CDBG '
•;.50i
CDBG Program Income
000
HOPWA
185.508
Subtotal, Federal Funds
512.029,385
Local Sources
Hotel Tax Fund
4.900,000
( litywide Tax Increment
19.275,000
IMA T.I.
10.000.000
Western Addition T.I.
12.275.000
Mission Bay
4.000,000
Bonds: Development Account
16,845
Bonds: Down-payment
-tance Account
2.969.700
Subtotal. Local Funds
S70.262.450
Total
S82.291.835
2 The funding sources noted above are for capital projects only. Of the proposed HOME grant,
totaling ST, 115.000, S6, 197.376 is designated for capital projects (including acquisition and
rehabilitation and new housing construction). $56,474 is designated for tenant rental assistance, and
$861,150 is designated for HOME administrative costs.
! Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are the subject of File 00-0488.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Tbe proposed total 2000 HOME Program funds of
$7,115,000 represents approximately 8.6 percent of the
total $ 82,291,835 in projected funds for privately owned
housing development in San Francisco.
Procedures for allocating HOME Program funds were
approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 1992
(File 68-92-4.1) and revised in February- of 1994 (File 68-94-
7). These procedures outlined broad criteria and the
process for allocating the HOME Program funds, including
notification procedures to interested parties on the
availability of housing funds, evaluation of funding
proposals, and criteria for underwriting housing loans.
Projects eligible for HOME funding are defined as follows:
(a) Construction of new housing units or rehabilitation of
existing housing units, which will be owned and
managed by the applicant for HOME funding, and
which will be occupied by households with incomes that
do not exceed 60 percent of the median income
established by HUD; or
(b) First-time home ownership assistance for low-income
persons with household incomes that do not exceed 80
percent of the median income established by HUD.
HOME regulations require that a minimum of 15 percent of
the City's proposed FY 2000-2001 HOME allocation of
$7,115,000, or $1,067,250, be reserved for housing
developed, sponsored or owned by non-profit Community
Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). According
to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH. nearly all of San Francisco's
affordable housing development efforts in recent years have
been conducted in collaboration with local community-
based non-profit housing development corporations, several
of which have satisfied HL ; D requirements to qualify as
CHDOs. CHDOs are expected to continue performing the
roles that non-profit housing development corporations
have traditionally performed in San Francisco, including
acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings,
acquisition of sites and development of new housing, and
ownership and management of subsidized developments.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
The proposed summary budget for the subject HOME
Investment Partnership Program grant is as follow
Increase/
IV 1999-2000 FY 2000-2001 (Decrease) in
Program Budget Budget FY 2000-2001
Acquisition and rehabilitation of
housing units for loiv-income
households
• Per unit cost greater than $25,000
• Per unit cost less than $25,000
Subtotal, Acquisition/ Rehabilitation
1.500.000
'17,288
1.500.000
$3,839,249
s.039)
-.039)
New housing construction
$1,824,109
$2,358,127
$534,018
Tenant-based housing assistance
$36,474
$56,474
$20,000
Administrative Costs
Community Housing Corporation
MOH HOME Program
Other administrative c
Subtotal, AdministraticeCosts
150,000
182.995
$821,129
150,000
~ ">71
153.579
$861,150
69
(29.416)
$40,021
Total
$7,079,000
$7,115,000
$36,000
Required Match:
$1,778,750 or 25 percent of HOME grant funds. Mr.
LaTorre states that matching funds arc available from the
Home Tax Fund, identified as a local funding source on the
previous page. Such matching funds would be part of the
total funding 291,835 for privately owned hou
developments, identified by the Preliminary 2000 Action
Plan for the City and Countv of San Francisco.
Comments:
1. According to Mr. LaTorre. MOH will issue "Notices of
Funding Availability" to nonprofit developers for (a)
development of supportive housing 4 units ($2,339,249), and
(b) preservation of existing nonprofit-owned housing
($1,500,000). Additionally. S2.35S.127 will be allocated to
Bridge Housing Corporation, a nonprofit developer, for an
existing project to construct new family rental housing at 1
Church Street. This total funding of S6. 197.376 repre-
percent of th< 00 in HOME funding.
4 Supportive housing provides necessary social services as well as housing to low-income residents.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
2. Mr. LaTorre states that tenant-based housing assistance
is provided by Catholic Charities Homeless Prevention
Program to assist low-income tenants in avoiding eviction.
3. As shown in the table above, total administrative costs in
the proposed FY 2000-2001 HOME Investment Partnership
Program are $861,150, which is $40,021 or 4.9 percent
more than total administrative costs in the FY 1999-2000
budget of $821,129 ($150,000 plus $488,134 plus $182,995).
The FY 2000-2001 MOH HOME program administration
costs of $557,571 are $69,437 or 14.2 percent more than the
FY" 1999-2000 allocation of $488,134. According to Mr.
Roger Sanders of MOCD, the increased HOME program
administration costs are due to increased salary costs for
the existing 5.05 program FTES, including negotiated
salary increases, salary step increases, and the associated
increase in fringe benefits. The Attachment, provided by
Mr. Sanders, contains the budget details for the proposed
FY" 2000-2001 HOME administrative budget. The Budget
Analyst has reviewed the FY" 1999-2000 and FY 2000-2001
HOME administrative budgets.
4. Mr. LaTorre states that $150,000 in administrative costs
would be allocated to the Community Housing Corporation,
which is unchanged from the amount allocated in FY 1999-
2000. Of the $150,000, the Chinese Community Housing
Corporation. the Mission Housing Development
Corporation, and the Tenderloin Neighborhood
Development Corporation would each be allocated $50,000.
5. Section l.C of MOH Criteria and Procedures for
allocating HOME Program funds requires that the Director
of MOH submit an Annual Report to the Board of
Supervisors by March 31 of each year for the preceding
calendar year, providing an accounting of all HOME!
program funds received by the City and how the funds won'
expended. The Annual Report was submitted to the I
of Supervisors on April 7. 2000.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervi-
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment
Mayor's Office of Housing HOME Administrative Expenditure Schedule 2000
P°m | Grant
Mai
in
Lint Item Descnpnon
St Sub-Ob|
Admin
MOHMOO
2!H
Class
Title
FTT
MOHM00
2IH
i
1367
Special Assistant VIII
Alv/.Ann
0:0
5
MOHMOO
21H
1369
Special .Assistant X
5 144.4
MOHM00
21 H
1370
SpeciaJ Assistant X]
50
S 28.07
MOHM00
2IH
1371
Special AiSistanl XIV
50
s : -
MOHM00
2IH
1374
SpeciaJ .Assistant XII
43 in
MOHM00
21H
1377
SpeciaJ Assistant Program Development I :u
S 10489
MOHM00
2IH
9774
Sr Communirv Development Spc 1 1
'
I
MOHM00
21H
Personnel
Labor Costs
116.217
MOHMOO
2IH
Personnel
Labor Costs Fringe
S w 56J
MOHM00
2IH
Personnel
Labor Costs 1 otal
S 3X5. "V,?
MOHM00
:ih
Personel
Salarv Savings a
S : - _■ ■
2IH
Personcl
Negotiated Increase
5 15 431
Ml HMI
2IH
Conference] & Travel
Conference Travel
S
Ml ■■•■< •
2IH
Drayage/Frcicht
rle Sale
s
MOHMOO
21H
Equipmcni
Lease Photocopier
S 5.000
MOHMOO
2IH
Equipmeni
Maintenance & Repair
S 1.000
MOHMOO
21 H
Equipment
Alio Fuel Jl Maintenance
5
MOHMOO
2IH
Leaal 4 Displav Advertising
MOHMOO
21 H
Memberships
MOHMOO
2IH
1
s : so
MOHMOO
2IH
Printing
s
MOHMOO
21H
Rental Space
25 Van Ness Lease
S "0.644
MOHMl
2IH
Supplies
Office Supplies
s
Ml HNII
21H
Telecommunications
ervicej
s
MOHMOO
2IH
Training
!
s :.5oo
MOHMOO
21 H
TOTAL
!
S 4TJ7I
I j
MOHMOO
21H
Professional Sen
S
Imohmoo
21H
Professional Set.
ning
s
21H
Professional Services
rnev
S 23 X
MOHMOI
21H
Professional Services
Controller
S
MOHMOO
21H
Professional Sen k
Real Estate
M : '.'
21H
Professional Services
ADA
M< HMi
21H
Professional Services
the
s
: l
Mi |M 211
Total HOME
5 557.571
MOH 2CC0 Euccet Review
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 6 - File 00-0488
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting
of April 12,2000.
Department:
Item:
Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD)
Resolution approving the FY 2000-2001 Community
Development Program. This resolution would (a) authorize
the Mayor, on behalf of the City and County of San
Francisco, to accept and expend the City's FY 2000-2001
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and program income generated by the San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $33,734,275. which
includes indirect costs of $160,000; and (b) approve the
expenditure schedule for recipient departments and
agencies and for indirect costs.
Description:
Refer to the Budget Analyst's separate report of April 12.
2000 on the Mayor's proposed FY 2000-2001 Community
Development Program.
The recommended FY 2000-2001 CDBG budget is
S25.275.000, which is $64,945 or 0.25 percent more than
the FY 1999-2000 CDBG budget of $25,210,055. Section I
through XII of the April 12. 2000 report provides an
analysis of the proposed FY' 2000-2001 CDBG budget,
including the Budget Analyst's recommendations.
Summary of
Recommendations:
Additionally, funds in the amount of $8,459,275 would be
used for specific program-income funded activities, as
discussed in Section XIII of the April 12. 2000 report.
The Budget Analyst's recommendations for the FY 2000-
2001 CDBG and Program Income budget are as foil
r- Reduce the FY" 2000-2001 Program Administration
budget by $13,146, from the proposed amount
%A 116,605 to $4,403,459. and place the amount of
$13,146 on reserve to be used for other CDBG eligible
activities.
Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Reserve $533,581 of the requested FY 1999-2000 CDBG
and Program Income funds, totaling $33,7.
follows:
(1) $90,000 in the Facility Emergency Relief Pool, to be
used to fund the Lavender Youth Recreation and
Information Center, pending submission of a
program plan and budget details.
(2) $100,000 in the Mayor - Economic Development Pool,
pending submission of a program plan and budget
details.
(3) $43,581 in the MOCD Planning and Ca;
Building Pool, pending submission of an expenditure
plan and budget details
00,000 in the Program Income Capital Projects
Pool, to be used to fund American with Dis
Act improvements for Brooks Hall, pending
submission of budget det;i
Approval of funding in the amount of $4,204,827 for new
or expanded programs is a policy matter for the Board of
Supervise
Approve funding in the amount of $29,516,302,
including CDBG and Program Income programs, for
existing programs for which the recommended budget
for FY" 2000-2001 was unchanged from the FY 1999-
2000 budget.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 7 - File 00-0424
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting
of April 5, 2000.
Department: Department of Public Health (DPH)
Item: Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco
Municipal Code (Business and Tax Regulation Code) by
amending Section 249.11 to revise permit fees for
temporary food operations at special events; amending Part
II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Traffic Code) by
amending Section 806 to revise Department of Public
Health permit fees for food operations at street fairs;
amending Part II of the San Francisco Municipal Code
(Health Code) by amending Sections 451 and 452 to: (a)
reorganize the section on applying for permits to operate a
food establishment, (b) modify the definition of "special
events," (c) change the deadline for applications for
temporary food permits for special events, and (d) impose
an extra fee for late applications for temporary permits.
Description: As the local health enforcement agency, the DPH has the
authority to enforce the California Uniform Retail Food
Facilities Law (CURFFL). In this role, the DPH.
Environmental Health Section's Special Events program
issues permits and inspects businesses that sponsor or
conduct temporary food or beverage sales or distributions.
Activities associated with this oversight role include
reviewing permit application and food preparation, issuing
required permits, conducting routine and follow up
inspections, and providing outreach to businesses to assure
compliance with CURFFL. Regulated businesses currently
pay fees to the city based upon the number of temporary
food booths per day of operation.
The current San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth
procedures to apply to the Department of Public Health for
food preparation and service establishment permits. The
Municipal Code also requires a temporary food service
permit to serve food at special events including streel fairs,
and sets forth fees ami deadlines for permit applica
and for the permits themsi Lves.
The proposed amendment would, beginning FY 2000-2001,
(1) increase DPH's filing fee for the sponsor of a "s]
event" at which food will be served, including streel fairs.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
(2) establishes new application and permit fees for
temporary food permits for special events based on the
classification of food being served as either "high" (prepared
on site) or "low"(pre-packaged) in potential health hazard;
(3) increase filing, application, and permit fees by 3% each
year beginning FY 2001-2002 -ubject to prior review by the
Controller, submission of program costs by DPH. and a
report to the Board of Supervisors that details program
costs and anticipated revenues; (4) modify the definition of
"special events 1 " to be slightly more inclusive for purposes
of temporary food permit applications; (5) impose a 50%
late charge if applications and filing fees for temporary food
permits are n red by the DPH by at least 14 days
before the event, and forecloses approval of applications if
those applications and filing (eea are not received prior to
seven days before the event, and (6) reorganize the
applicable Municipal Code sections on applications for food
service permits, including temporary food permits to
accommodate the changes above.
According to DPH. the permit fees are intended to fully
recover the cost of this program. The Board of Supervisors
last increased the program fees for Special Events in July
of 198 - ■ cording to Mr. James Gillen, Senior
Administrative Analyst at DPH. the revenues from Special
Event fees realized by the City have consistently been less
than the I - incurred in connection with such events.
Attachment I, provided by DPH. contains a fist of all
current fees applicable to this legislation. Including the
existing fees, the proposed fees, the amount of the proposed
fee increases, the percentage fee increases, the amount of
the current annual revenues, and the amount of the
proposed annual revenues if the proposed fee increases are
approved. As noted in Attachment I. the total increase in
fee revenue would be 187 percent if this proposed ordinance
is approved.
1 The current Section 249.11 of the Municipal Code reads: "Special Events' means any organized
collection of food purveyors operating individually or as a group from within temporary faculties for
a maximum 25 days within a 90-day period upon private or public property." The new ordinance
would read: "Special Events' means any organized collection of food purveyors operating individually
or collaboratively out of approved temporary or mobile food facilities at a fixed location for a period of
time not to exceed 25 days in a 90-day period in conjunction with a single, weekly, or monthly
community event as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 113895ih)."
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comments:
1. Attachment II, provided by DPH, details the City's FY
2000-2001 costs for regulation of temporary food operations
at special events which are projected to be $173,185, or
$1,805 less than the projected revenues of $174,990.
According to Mr. Gillen, if revenues exceed costs, DPH will
make an adjustment to its proposed annual request for a
three percent fee increase. DPH will request an adjusted
rate of increase to ensure that program revenues closely
match program costs. Based on the data presented in
Attachments I and II, total projected FY 2000-2001
expenditures of $173,185 would exceed revenues based on
current fees by $112,198 if this proposed ordinance is not
approved ($173,185 in expenditure less $60,507 in revenue
based on current fees).
2. Attachment III, provided by DPH. contains a list of the
counties that were surveyed by DPH for their fee structures
regarding temporary food operations. According to Mr.
Gillen, these counties were surveyed to provide a basis for
comparison, and to ensure that, relative to other counties,
the fees required by the City and County of San Francisco
would not be excessive.
Recommendation:
3. According to Mr. Gillen, annual fee increases of up to
three percent would be reviewed by the Controller, and
reported to the Board of Supervisors. As such, separate
Board of Supervisors approval of future fee increases would
not be required. If the proposed ordinance is approved, new
fee revenues would be included in DPH's FY 2000-2001
budget.
Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for
the Board of Supervisors. .
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
Table 2. Current (99-00) and Proposed (00-01) Fee Schedule
Estimated Current Proposed
Inventor/ Fees Fees
Percent
Increase/Decrease
Proposed
Revenue/Year
Application Fees:
1. Event Sponsor
2. Sponsored Low
Hazard Operator
3. Sponsored High
Hazard Operator
4. Unsponsored
LowHazard
Operator
5. Unsponsored
High Hazard
Operator
Permit Fees
6. Low Hazard
Operation
High Hazard
Operation
Total Fee Revenue
210
369
1116
41
S50
No
Charge
No"
Charge
S50
S50
S100
100%
S21,000/year
S20
S7,380/year
S46
N/A
S5 i,336/year
S20
(6<?
S320/year
S^6
S5,704/vear
S25 r :
S3 5 ud to 2
days
S10 each
S 1 each
dav
dav
S25 l s:
S60 up to 2
dav/
davs
S 1 each
S20 each
day
S6C987
40°
■
S72,600/year
Attachment __
Table 1. Projected FY 2000-01 Special Events Program Costs
Budget Category FTE Annual Expense
6122 Sr. Health Inspector
6120 Health Inspector
6 124 Principal Health Inspector
1426 Clerk Typist
Mandatory Fringe Benefits
Prorated operating costs
Projected Program Total Cost
Annual Fees Collected
Expected Costs Not Recovered
Projected Fees Collected FY 00/01
Projected Over-Collection
0.96
75,695
0.31
22.720
0.15
12,724
0.25
10,727
30,466
20.S54
5173,185
S 60,987
S112.198
SI 74.990
S 1,805
Attachment III
O —
— - J^
5! 3
a = a
~ "5 >>
S a — — ;-
-
u
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 8 - File 00-0565
Department:
Item:
Department of Human Resources (DHR)
Ordinance fixing compensation for persons
employed by the City and County of San Francisco
whose compensation is subject to the provisions of
Section A 8.4U9 of the Charter, in classes not
represented by an employee organization and
establishing working schedules and conditions of
employment and methods of payment, effective
Julv 1, 2000.
Description:
The proposed ordinance would fix compensation
levels and establish working schedules and
conditions of employment for the 85 classifications,
identified m Attachment I. which consists of a total
of 158 employees not represented by an employee
organization. Of these 158 employees, 37 are
management employees and 121 are non-
management employees. Such compensation levels
and working schedules are set by ordinance
annually for Unrepresented employees, including
positions designated as "A" or unclassified
positions, and various other positions. The
proposed ordinance is for the one-year period from
Julv 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001.
The changes in the proposed ordinance from FY
1999-2000 to FY 2000-01 are as follows:
Section 2 - Wage Rates
For FY 1999-2000, the wage rates for the
employees covered by this ordinance were increased
by two percent effective July 1, 1999 and another
1.5 percent effective December 25, 1999. Under the
proposed ordinance. Unrepresented employee wage
rates for FY 2000-01, except as noted below, would
be increased by an additional two percent effective
July 1, 2000 and another 1.5 percent on January 6,
The proposed ordinance would also increase the
salary range for the Supervising Performance
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Auditor classification (Classification 1801), which
covers two positions, by 7.4 percent (the two
percent increases other covered employees would
receive plus an additional 5.4 percent), from the
existing $2,166 - $2,632 biweekly to $2,326 -$ 2,827
biweekly effective July 1, 2000 (See Comment 2).
At the top step, and including the additional 1.5
percent increase in January of 2001, the 1801
Supervising Performance Auditors would be paid
136 in FY 2000-01. In addition, the proposed
ordinance states that the salary for the Director of
the Employee Relations Division (Classification
L283) shall not be less than Classification 1278 the
Division Manager. Personal, effective July 1, 2000
(See Commeiv
The proposed ordinance also deletes the biweekly
ilary rate-, for all of the Executive Assistant
classifications covered by this ordinance (See
Commenl I)
Section 38 - Severance Pay
Currently, the City must provide up to 30 days of
nee pay for employees in AC01 Executive
Assistant I through AC22 Executive Assistance
XXII positions, if the number of days from the date
notice was given was less than 30 and if the
employee is involuntarily removed and the
employee does not have "bumpim: nsht.-" The
proposed ordinance would delete this severance pay
provision (See Comment 4).
Various Sections
The proposed ordinance also includes various
changes to reflect updates to previously approved
Charter Amendments, corrections for titles and
dates and other clerical revisions for clarity.
Comments: 1. According to Ms. Alice Villagomez of ERD. the
proposed wage in< : two percent on July 1.
2000 and another 1.5 percent on January 6, 2001 is
being proposed for the Unrepresented employees
because this is the same wage increases that other
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
City craft workers, Local 21 employees and most
other miscellaneous, non-uniformed employees in
the City have been previously authorized by the
Board of Supervisors to receive in FY 2000-01.
2. Ms. T anet Rogers of DHR advises that the
proposed increase in salary of 7.4 percent for the
1801 Supervising Performance Auditors, includes
the overall two percent wage increase for all
Unrepresented employees as of July 1, 2000.
According to Ms. Rogers, this 7.4 percent increase
is intended to restore the same wage rates for both
the 1801 Supervising Performance Auditor and the
1686 Supervising Auditor positions, which Ms.
Rogers advises are comparable positions within the
Controller's Office. Ms. Rogers reports that the
1686 Supervising Auditors are currently
represented by Local 21 and are paid at this higher
wage scale.
3. In addition, Ms. Rogers advises that the
language requiring that the salary of the 1283,
Director of the Employee Relations Division not be
less than the 1278, Division Manager, Personnel is
proposed in order to maintain the historical pay
relationship between these two classifications.
Currently, the Director of the Employee Relations
Division is paid $104,512 at the top step, which will
increase by an overall 2.4 percent to $106,989 at
the top step in FY" 2000-01, under the proposed
ordinance. Currently, the 1278, Division Manager,
Personnel is paid $100,511 at the top step.
However, Ms. Rogers advises that the 1278,
Division Manager, Personnel position is currently
represented by the Management Executive
Association (MEA), which has not yet determined
those classifications thai will receive additional
internal salary adjustments for FY' 2000-01.
Although the proposed ordinance does not specify
how much the Director of the Employee Relations
Division would be paid, Ms. Roger- advises that if
the Division Manager, Personnel receives pay
increases which result in a higher salary than the
amount paid to the Director of the Empl
Relations Division, then the Director - -alary would
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meet inn
be increased to the same level as the Division
Manager. Personnel. The Budget Analyst notes
that currently the Director of the Employee
Relations Division is paid 4.0 percent more than
the Division Manager, Personnel.
4. According to Ms. Rogers, in response to requests
by the Mayors Office, the 22 different Executive
Assistant classifications (AC01 Executive Assistant
I through AC22 Executive Assistant XXII) were
created in last year- Unrepresented employees
ordinance. Ms. Roger- advises that the proposed
ordinance deletes the specific biweekly salary rates
for all of these Executr. at classifications
because these salaries would now be listed in the
City's Compensation Manual, ranging between
$1,271 biweekly ($33,046 annually) for an
Executive Assistant >3 biweekly ($148,018
annually) for an Executi tant XXII at the
top step, effective July 1, 2000. Ms. Rogers advises
that none of these Executive Assistant
classifications are currently filled positions. Ms.
Rogers further advises that the severance pay
provisions for these Executive Assistant
classifications are deleted in the proposed
ordinance because none of these positions are filled
and therefore, such severance pay provisions are
not necessary at this time.
5. As shown in Attachment II. provided by Ms. Peg
Stevenson of the Controller's Office, implementing
the proposed ordinance would result in estimated
salary, internal adjustments and fringe benefit
costs of an additional $413,067 for FY 2000-01 and
16.969 on an annualized basis in FY" 2001-02. for
a total additional two year cost of $930,036. Based
on the existing salary base of approximately $11.6
million for the 158 employees that would be
affected by the proposed ordinance, this would
result in an increase of approximately 3.57 percent
above their base salaries in FY 1999-2000 and an
additional 0.86 percent in FY 2001
6. The Budget Analyst concurs with the
Controller's cost analysis. However, the Budget
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Analyst notes that the actual costs in FY 2001-02
are likely to be higher than the amounts indicated
since the proposed ordinance is only effective for
the one year period from July 1, 2000 through June
30. 2001, and there is likely to be another
ordinance next year, further adjusting annual
compensation for the Unrepresented employees.
7. Ms. Stevenson advises that the $413,067
required to pay for these wage and fringe benefit
increases will be included in the FY 2000-01
budget, as submitted to the Board of Supervisors.
The funding source for General Fund-supported
departments would be the City's General Fund,
while other Special Fund departments, such as the
Airport, would use other funding sources to finance
these increased wage and benefit costs.
8. A substitute ordinance has been introduced to
delete language in order that this ordinance will
not result in any changes to the current procedures
for retirement contributions.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed substitute ordinance is a
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment I
Pape 1 of 2
Attachment A
Miscellaneous Unrepresented Classifications <egcoooi)
1130 Youth Commission Advisor, Board of Supervisors
1229 Special Examiner
1471 Elections Worker
1801 Supervising Performance Auditor
1942 Assistant Materials Coordinator
2561 Optometrist
2576 Supervising Clinical Psychologist
2782 Laundry Superintendent
3238 Dance Instructor
3438 Tree Topper Supervisor II
3484 Agricultural Division Land Agent
3650 Medical Records Librarian
5264 Airport Noise Abatement Technician
5502 Project Manager I
5504 Project Manager II
5506 Project Manager III
5630 Water & Power Analyst I
7369 Apprentice Sheet Metal Worker
8121 Investigator, Public Transportation Commission
8168 Parking Hearing Supervisor
8222 Housing Authority Police Officer
8247 Emergency Planning Coordinator
8446 Court Alternative Specialist I
9132 Transit Fare Inspector
9914 Public Service Aide - Administration
9916 Public Service Aide - Public Works
9920 Public Service Aide - Assistant to Professionals
9922 Public Service Aide - Associate to Professionals
A046 Transit Line Manager
A047 Water Supply Engineer
A100 Parking Enforcement Supervisor
A739 Transit Maintenance Manager III
A805 Telecommunications Systems Director
A837 Investigative Assistant
A922 Electronic Instrumentation Assistant Supervisor
AA37 Executive Assistant to the Assessor
AA55 Parking Citation Hearing Officer
AA63 Administrative Secretary, Port
AA85 Administrative Secretary, Transportation Commission
AB07 Informaticn Clerk, Parking & Traffic
AB21 Dual Diagnosis Specialist
AB26 Director of Taxpayer Assistant
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2
AB27 Secretary, Commission on the Environment
AB80 Principal Public Defender's Investigator
AC01 Executive Assistant I
AC02 Executive Assistant II
AC03 Executive Assistant III
AC04 Executive Assistant IV
AC05 Executive Assistant V
AC06 Executive Assistant VI
AC07 Executive Assistant VII
AC08 Executive Assistant VIII
AC09 Executive Assistant IX
AC10 Executive Assistant X
AC1 1 Executive Assistant XI
AC1 2 Executive Assistant XII
AC23 Public Safety Wire Communications Program Manager
AC24 Secretary, Port Commission
Management Unrepresented Classifications (egc.
1283 Director, Employee Relations Division
1293 Human Resources Director
1379 Special Assistant XX
1849 Mayor's Program Manager
2953 Chief Deputy Director, Department of Human Services
2978 Contract Compliance Officer II
55Q.8 Project Manager IV
8137 Chief/Victim Witness Investigator
9252 Airport Maintenance Superintendent
A006 Parking Bureau Chief
A114 MIS Manager
A827 Airport Parking Manager
A919 Construction Contract Administration
AA81 Executive Director, Ethics Commission
AB29 Business & Economic Development Director
AB31 Executive Director, Department of the Environment
AB44 Confidential Chief Attorney II, (Civil & Criminal)
AC13 Executive Assistant XIII
AC14 Executive Assistant XIV
AC15 Executive Assistant XV
AC16 Executive Assistant XVI
AC17 Executive Assistant XVII
AC18 Executive Assistant XVIII
AC 19 Executive Assistant IXX
AC20 Executive Assistant XX
AC21 Executive Assistant XXI
AC22 Executive Assistant XII
0002)
Apr-12-00 05:08pm From-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE +415-554-7466 Attachment II
pv -e 1 ot 2
\il CITY Aft) COUNTY OF SA.N FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CONTROLL E
Edward Hurnngu
ControUi
Matthew H. Hym
Chief Assistant Controlli
April 11,2000
Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board
Board of Superv: sors
Ciry Hall. Roorr 244
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, C A 94102
Il£: Ordinance Fixing Compensaaon for Unrepresented Employees
File No. 00-0565
Dear Ms. Younj;:
In accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am submitting a cost analysis of an ordinance fixing compensation
for unrepresented employees of the City and County of San Francisco. The ordinance covers the period
July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, and affects approximately 158 employees with a salary base of
approximately $11.6 million.
Based on our analysis, the ordinance will result in incremental costs of approximately $413,000 in FY
2000-2001 and :il04,000 in FY 2001-2002. These increments represent cost increases above base salaries
of approximate: y 3.57% in FY 2000-2001 and .86% in 2001-2002. Please see Attachment A for specific
cost estimates.
If you have an^ additional questions or concerns please contact me at 554-7500 or Peg Stevenson of my
staff at 554-752 2.
Sincerely,
<A
Edward M. Hai
Controller
Vicki Rambo, ERD
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst
415-S54-75O0 City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlion B. GoodUtt Place • Room 316 • San Knincteco Ca SM102-1694 Fi\ »l5-554-7*
Apr-12-00 05:08pm From-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE +415-554-7466 Attachment II
Page 2 &l '2
Attachment A
Unrepresented Employees Ordinance
Estimated Costs 2:000-2001
Controller's Office
Annual lncremenl . il Costs/fSavinqs) FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2002'
Wage Increase
2% on July 1,2000 and 1.5% on January 1,2001 $318,314 $90,099
Internal Adjustments 39,877
Wage-Related Fringe Increases 54,875 13.S03
Total Estimated Incremental Costs 413,067 103.902
Annual Amount /ibove 1999-2000 Level 413,067 516,969
Cumulative Total Above 1999-2000 Provisions $930,035
Incremental Cosi % of Salary Base 3.57% 0.86%
1 Amount shown is due to annualization of the prior year's wage increase.
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 9 - File 00-0524
Department:
Item:
Comment:
Recommendation:
Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Hetch Hetchy Water and Power
Resolution authorizing the expenditure of funds for
emergency repair of corrosion in the San Joaquin Pipeline
No. 3 of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct.
Mr. Larry Klein of the PUC has requested that the
proposed resolution be continued for one week.
Continue this resolution for one week as requested by Mr.
Klein.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 10 - File 00-0568
Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Item: Resolution authorizing a new 20-year lease of
Public Utilities Commission land between the City
and County of San Francisco and the Koret
Foundation, in San Mateo County.
Location: Portion of Parcel 22, Baden-Merced Bay Division
Pipeline Right of Way, City of South San Francisco,
San Mateo County, California
Purpose of Lease: Paved parking lot, driveway, and landscaped area
to be used by the Lessee's (Koret Foundation's)
adjacent apartment complex.
Lessor: City and County of San Francisco through the
Public Utilities Commission
Lessee: Koret Foundation
No. of Square Feet and
Rent Per Month: 41,817 square feet of land. However, the rent is
based on only 11,650 square feet of leaseable land
at $1,101 per month, or $0,095 per square foot of
leaseable land per month ($13,211 annually). See
Comment No. 2 for additional details.
Annual Rent Payable
By Koret Foundation
To the City: $13,211. This annual rent would be adjusted 12
months after the commencement date of the lease,
and then readjusted every 12 months thereafter, by
the annual percentage increase in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI). In accordance with the proposed
lease, the monthly base rent on or after the
adjustment date cannot be less than the monthly
base rent in effect immediately prior to the
adjustment date.
In addition, the base rent would be adjusted to
equal the fair market rental of such property every
five years. This adjustment would be determined by
the Public Utilities Commission's Bureau of
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Increase (Decrease)
in Rent:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Description:
Comments:
Commercial Land Management, using a market
survey approach, in consultation with the
Department of Real Estate. The adjustment would
take into account (a) land values in the general
vicinity of the City of South San Francisco (b) the
location and size of the premises covered by leases
of comparable space, and (c) the duration of the
comparable leases. As noted above, the annual base
rent on or after the adjustment date cannot be less
than the annual base rent in effect immediately
prior to the adjustment date.
Under the proposed lease the annual rent on the
subject PUC property would increase from the
previous rent of $8,280 annually to $13,211
annually, an increase of $4,931, or 59.6 percent.
See Comment No. 3 for details.
The proposed lease between the PUC and the Koret
Foundation would commence upon approval by the
Board of Supervisors and would expire 20 years
thereafter (approximattly May of 2020).
None.
The proposed resolution would authorize a 20-year
lease of 41,817 square feet of PUC property for use
as a paved parking area with a driveway and
landscaping for the Lessee's adjoining apartment
complex.
1. Mr. Gary Dowd of the PUC reports that the
subject PUC parcel is landlocked by the Lessee's
property and thus the PUC parcel has no use to
any other property owner and is not available for
independent development. According to Mr. Dowd,
when the PUC originally purchased the subject
property in 1907. the original owner who sold the
property to the PUC reserved agricultural
(landscaping) and cross over (access) right
privileges for the adjoining properties in the grant
deed. Mr. Dowd advises that the original deed
therefore requires the PUC to permit the adjoining
property owner to continue to allow agricultural
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
and access rights on the PUC's property, at no
charge.
2. Of the total 41,817 square feet of space under the
proposed lease, 30,167 square feet, or
approximately 72 percent of the area would be
exclusively used for agricultural (landscaping) and
crossover (driveway) purposes only. The remaining
11,650 square feet, or approximately 28 percent of
the area, would be used for a paved parking lot. Mr.
Dowd advises that the PUC measured the uses that
were not strictly for landscaping and driveway
purposes to determine the amount of square
footage for which the subject lease could be
charged. Therefore, although the subject lease is for
the entire 41,817 square feet of space, only 11,650
square feet of space, which would be used for the
parking lot, is subject to the rental rate of $1,101
per month (approximately $0,095 per square foot of
leaseable land per month) or $13,211 annually.
3. Mr. Dowd advises that the Koret Foundation
previously held a 9-year lease for the subject
property, for the same landscaping, driveway and
parking lot purposes that are proposed under the
subject new lease. However, Mr. Dowd reports that
during the approximate six years since this 9-year
lease expired in September of 1994, the Koret
Foundation has leased the subject property on a
month-to-month basis. Furthermore, Mr. Dowd
advises that the PUC and the Koret Foundation
recently completed involved and time-consuming
negotiations over the subject lease. According to
Mr. Dowd, the rent under the previous month-to-
month hold over was $690 per month, or $0,059 per
square foot of the 11,650 square feet of leaseable
land per month ($8,280 annually.) Mr. Dowd
advises that the previous lease and month-to-
month hold over did not contain provisions for
market rental rate revaluations and ini
although Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments
were included.
5. According to Mr. Dowd. the proposed annual
rental rate of $13,211 reflects the current fair
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
market rental rate for the subject property. In
addition, as previously noted, Mr. Dowd advises
that the proposed lease contains several provisions
for revaluation and rent adjustments for the
subject property lease.
5. As noted above, the PUC has leased the subject
property to the Koret Foundation on a month-to-
month hold over basis since 1994, approximately 6
years ago. According to Mr. Dowd, over the course
of the past four years, the PUC has been
renegotiating all of PUC's leases and permits that
were previously issued, on a priority basis, with the
larger revenue generating leases and permits
addressed first, followed by PUC's smaller
transactions, such as the subject l<-ase.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 11 - File 00-0484
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Lessee:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Cost Per Month:
Annual Cost:
Utilities and Janitor
Provided by Lessor:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Source of Funds:
Department of Public Health (DPH)
Department of Human Services (DHS)
Department of Real Estate (DRE)
Resolution authorizing and approving a new Master
Lease by and between the City and County of San
Francisco, for the Department of Public Health, as tenant,
and Hotel Le Nain, LLC, as landlord, for the "Hotel Le
Nain" located at 730 Eddy Street, San Francisco.
"Hotel Le Nain", 730 Eddy Street, San Francisco.
To provide 92 residential dwellings for approximately 115
subtenants under the "Direct Access to Housing" Program
(see "Description" below).
Hotel Le Nain, LLC, a California limited liability
company.
City and County of San Francisco, on behalf of DPH.
60,000 square feet at a monthly rent of $38,500
(approximately $0.64 per square foot) during Year One of
the subject lease (see Comment No. 7 for the annual rent
adjustment formula).
$462,000 in Year One of the subject lease. Annual rental
costs in subsequent years would be subject to the annual
rent adjustment formula explained in Comment No. 7.
None
Ten years (May 1. 2000 to April 30, 2010).
None
According to Mr. Marc Trotz of DPH. $160,000 has been
budgeted in FY* 1999-2000 by DPH for "Hotel Le Nam"
start-up and operations costs. Ms. Monique Xnual.
DPH states that a funding proposal for the "Hotel Le
Nain" in the amount of $640,400 from the General Fund
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
has been included in the DPH's proposed FY 2000-2001
budget 1 . According to Ms. Taylor Emerson of the Mayor's
Budget Office, DPH's funding proposal for $640,400 from
the General Fund in FY' 2000-2001 for Hotel Le Nain
operating costs has been developed by the Mayor's Budget
Office.
Description:
The subject master lease 2 would permit DPH to lease
60,000 square feet of the "Hotel Le Nain", a residential
class tourist hotel located at 730 Eddy Street, San
Francisco, for ten years in order to sublease residential
units to individuals eligible for assistance from DPH's
Direct Access to Housing" Program. This program is
designed to secure affordable, community-based housing
for homeless and extremely low-income San Fran :
residents by having the City or a nonprofit organization
lease privately owned buildings and then sublease
residential units in those buildings to individuals who (a)
are medically frail, and/or (b) are at risk of homelessness,
and/or (c) have recently exited homeless shelters or
residential treatment programs, and (d) are capable of
living independently with on-site support services. Mr.
Trotz states that the "Hotel Le Nain" would particularly
get homeless seni' rding to Mr. Trotz. the
Hotel Le Nun" would be the third residential building to
be leased by the City for the "Direct Access to Hous;
Program. The first was the Pacific Bay Inn. located at
520 Jones Street, and the second was the Windsor Hotel,
located at 238 Eddy Street, both of which are already
occupied by DPH clients. DHS also operates three
equivalent residential faciln
Comments:
1. The "Hotel Le Nain" is currently used as a residential
and tourist hotel. Of the 92 units. 50 are currently
occupied. Mr. Trotz states that DPH would lease the
entire building and property, with the exception of a
portion of the ground floor space of the building, and DPH
would accept all existing tenants. DPH clients would
move into those 50 units as thev become available
1 A FY 2000-2001 budget appropriation of S640.400 would fund the difference between
projected Hotel Le Nain annual rent payments of S408.000 and total estimated expenditures
of 51,048,400 (see Comment Xo. 8).
- This "master lease" structures the lease so that the DPH assumes full responsibility for the
day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repair of the Hotel Le Nam. rather than sharing
that responsibility with the building owner.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
through attrition. Mr. Trotz states that there would be no
time limit placed on the length of DPH clients' residency
at the hotel. According to Mr. Trotz, the building is in
such good physical condition that DPH would only need to
invest in some minor accessibility improvements. Ms.
Zmuda states that the cost of such improvements is
estimated to be approximately $75,000 which would be
funded from FY 1999-2000 DHS funds set aside for
housing services.
2. According to Ms. Zmuda, DPH plans to enter into a
sole source contract with a nonprofit agency, Episcopal
Community Services (ECS), for:
• property management services, at an estimated
annual cost of $386,400 (as shown in Comment No. 4
below); and
• delivery of a range of on-site support services for
mental health, life skills development, crisis
intervention, access to medical care, and meals, at an
estimated annual cost of $200,000 (as shown in
Comment No. 5 below).
The sources of funds for these annual contractual costs of
$586,400 ($386,400 plus $200,000) would be (a) tenant
rental revenues, and (b) the General Fund (see Comment
No. 8).
3. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH plans to enter into a sole
source contract with ECS because when DPH issued two
Requests for Proposals for supportive housing services in
the Spring of 1999, it received no bidders for the Windsor
Hotel and only one bidder, ECS, for the Pacific Bay Inn.
Mr. Trotz advises that this lack of response was due to
non-profit organizations' unfamiliarity with providing a
combination of both property management services and
supportive residential services. Most non-profit
organizations provide either one type of service or the
other. Ms. Zmuda states that ECS has a very positive
performance record. This is demonstrated, accordinf
Mr. Trotz. by DPrTs contracts with ECS for (a)
administration of DPJTs Pacific Bay Inn residential
facility, and (b) supportive housing units for the homi
;n the ECS-owned Canon Kip Community House.
Furthermore, ECS operates the Episcopal Sanctuary, a
ROARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
homeless shelter on Eighth Street, which provides
temporary accommodation for homeless seniors who
would be eligible for permanent housing at the Hotel Le
Nain, thereby ensuring continuity of care, according to
Mr. Trotz.
4. According to Mr. Trotz, the estimated annual property
management services contract cost with ECS of $386,400
would be expended as foil'
Expenditure Item
Estimated Cost
Property management costs
$154,000
t Utilities
75.000
Furniture and equipment
11.400
Maintenance, services, and repairs
80,000
Processing fees and credit reports for
6.000
new tenants
Maintenance supplies
30.000
TOTAL:
$386,400
Mr Trotz states that these cost estimates are based on (a)
applying DPH's previous experience in contracting out the
property management of residential hotels to the Hotel Le
Nam. and lb) the actual known operating costs of the
Le Nam.
\ccording to Mr. Trotz. the estimated on-site support
services contract cost with ECS of $200,000 would be
expended on staffing costs as follows:
Expenditure Item
Estimated Cost
S35.000
45.000
45.000
30,000
45.000
S200.000
Program Director (0.5 FTE)
Activities Co-ordinator
Case Manager
Nurse (0.5 FTE)
Social Worker
TOTAL:
The attachment, provided by Mr. Trotz. provides further
budget details about this proposed expenditure of (a)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
$386,400 for property management services, and (b)
$200,000 for on-site support services.
6. Under the subject lease, DPH would be responsible for
the cost of maintenance or repair of major systems (such
as the elevator, and the heating, ventilation, air
conditioning, electrical, and plumbing systems) if such
maintenance or repairs (a) cost up to $5,000 per
maintenance or repair obligation, up to an annual cap of
$15,000, or (b) were the result of DPH or subtenant
negligence, misconduct, or vandalism. ECS would be
responsible for the full cost of routine maintenance and
repair of non-major systems and facilities, including
monthly pest control services.
7. Under the subject lease, on each anniversary of the
lease commencement date, the rental rate would increase
by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area, provided
that the percentage increase shall not be less than 3.5
percent nor more than 6 percent.
8. According to Mr. Trotz, the total cost of operating the
"Hotel Le Nain" in Year One of the proposed lease would
be as follows:
Annual rent: $462,000
Contract for property management services: 386.400
Contract to provide on-site services: 200.000
Total Expenditures: $1,048,400
Mr. Trotz states that this total operating cost of
$1,048,400 in Year One would be met by the following
funding sources:
Existing tenants' rent payments $240,000
(50 rooms x $400 per month x 12 months)
DPH client tenants' rent payments 3 : lCS.OOO
(40 rooms x $350 per month x L2 months)
New DPH General Fund allocation: 640.400
Total Revenues: $1,048,400
3 DPHclienttenantswouldberequiredtopayapproxim.it at of their incon
rent.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
9. Ms. Zmuda states that a funding proposal for the
"Hotel Le Nam" in the amount of $640,400 from the
General Fund has been included in the DPH's proposed
FY 2000-2001 budget. Mr. Trotz states that the proposed
lease contains a termination clause (Section 3.4) which
permits the City to terminate the lease for any reason
upon 180 days prior written notice. This would permit
the City to terminate the lease in six months in the event
of non-appropriation of the necessary operating funds.
10. There are currently approximately 73 existing
tenants occupying 50 of the hotel's 92 rooms, some of
which are occupied by two tenants. These existing
truants currently pay, on average, $400 in monthly rent
per room, or $4,800 per room per year. The remaininj
rooms would be rented to individual DPH client tenants
who would pay a standard rental rate of $350 in monthly
rent per room, or approximately > 1.200 per room per
year 1 . As existing tenants leave and are replaced by DPH
client tenants, rental revenue will decrease from an
rage of $400 per room per month to an average of
$350. However, according to Mr. Trot/, attrition of
('\i>tiiiL r tenants is likely to be very slow (he estimates
that only two existing tenants will leave each year) and,
therefore, the $50 monthly differential between the rent
paid by an existing tenant and the rent which would be
paid by a DPH client would only have a minor impact on
overall rental revenues. If two existing tenants left two
hotel rooms vacant each year thereby allowing
replacement occupancy by two DPH clients, annual rental
revenues would only decrease by an average of $1,200
each year. Ms. Zmuda advises that this estimated
differential would be absorbed by DPH*s housing unit
budget which is funded by Federal and private foundation
grants, and the General Fund.
11. The proposed lease includes a clause "indemnifying
and holding harmless the Landlord from, and agreeing to
defend the Landlord against, any and all claims, costs and
expenses, including without limitation, reasonable
attorney's fees, incurred as a result of City's use of the
premises, any default by the City in the performance of
4 The flat rate of $350 per month is based on 40 of the 42 available units being rented to
DPH clients at any one time, thereby allowing for vacancies between tenants, according to
Mr. Trotz.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
any of its obligations under the Master Lease, or any acts
or omissions of City, its agents or its subtenants in, on or
about the premises or property on which the premises are
located." According to Ms. Amy Brown of the City
Attorney's Office, these waivers are standard and pose
minimal additional risk to the City. This provision would
require the City to defend and pay damages assessed
against the Lessor arising out of negligence by the City in
the performance of the proposed contract. The City has
entered into other agreements which include similar
indemnification provisions and waivers, and the risk of
additional liability to the City is minimal, according to
Ms. Brown.
12. Mr. Mark Zuffo of DRE states that the proposed rent
represents fair market value.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
APR- 13-2000 07:33
DPH HOUSING
Attachment
|LE NA1N HOTEL -SERVICES AND OPERATIONS BUDGET
Support Services
Annual Budget
Program Director (.5 FTE)
35.000
Activities Coordinator (1 FTE)
45,000.00
Case Manager (1 FTE)
45.000.00
Nurse (.5 FTE)
30.000.00
Social Worker (1 FTE)
45.000.00
Sub Total
200.000.00
Property Management Services
Admin/Bookeeper ( 1 FTE)
45.000.00
Janitor/Maintenance (1 FTE)
30,000.00
Nightime Security (.25 FTE)
15,000.00
Front Desk Clerk (1. FTE)
30.000.00
Admin/Bookecpcr (1 FTE)
34,000.00
Sub Total
154,000.00
Operations
Utilities
75.000.00
Electicity/Gas
36,000.00
H20/sewer
24,000.00
Elevator Monthly Service
2,400.00
Termite Control Service
1,500.00
Garbage Collection
5,700.00
Telephone Service
5,400.00
Subtotal
75,000.00
Furniture & Equipment
41,400.00
Desks and Chairs (3 sets)
3,000.00
Examination Table
4,000.00
Xerox and Fax
7,500.00
Sofa and coffee table
2,500.00
Matresses and Beds
15,000.00
Dressers and chairs
9,100.00
Subtotal
41,100.00
Mntnce, Services & Repairs
80.000.00
Processing Fees/Credit Reprt
6,000.00
Maintenance Supplies
30,000.00
Sub Total
232,400.00
[total
5X^.400.00 1
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 12 - File 00-0576
Department:
Item:
Recreation and Park Department (RPD)
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Ordinance appropriating $984,850 of the
Neighborhood Development Special Revenue Fund
balance to fund the proposed Mid-Embarcadero
Music Concourse, for the Department of Recreation
and Park.
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Budget:
$984,850
Downtown Park Frnd (see Comment No. 6)
In June of 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved a
resolution (File No. 98-1096) urging the Planning
Department, Department of Recreation and Park,
Department of Public Works, and other relevant City
departments, to develop a detailed proposal and
identify funding sources for the construction of a
music concourse and organ pavilion to be located
within the open space area created by the demolition
of the mid-section of Embarcadero Freeway. This
open space area, which is now known as the Mid-
Embarcadero Music Concourse site, is bound by
Market Street to the north, Mission Street to the
south, Steuart Street to the west, and the
Embarcadero roadway to the east.
In July of 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution , ''approving and authorizing the
appropriation of up to $984,850 from the Downtown
Park Special Fund" for landscape improvements to
the Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse site (File No.
99-1222). The Controller's Office is now requesting
that this matter be brought before the Board of
Supervisors as an ordinance , rather than a
resolution, specifying an appropriation of $984,850
for the Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse.
The summary budgel for the proposed project is as
follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Phase I
• Architectural and engineering
services
$80,000
• Site construction, including
preparation, paving,
construction of retaining
walls, landscaping, and
electrical work
469.112
• Construction contingency
(10%)
46.911
• DPW costs
36.530
Subtotal
$632,553
Phase II (estimated)
• Architectural and engineering
services
D00
• Site construction, including
precast concrete work,
electrical work and
000
installation of plant
• Construction conting>
(10
)00
• DPW costs
37.000
Subtotal
349,000
Project Total
$981,553
The attached memorandum, provided by DPW.
contains an explanation of the proposed budget. The
proposed budget of $!'- - $3,297 less than the
requested appropriation of $984,850. The Budget
Analyst therefore recommends a reduction of the
requested appropriation b from $984,850 to
$981."
Comments:
1. According to Mr. Steve O'Sullivan of DPW. DPW
would submit a change order to an existing contract
with Stacy and Witbeck. Inc.. the contractor which
submitted the low bid to perform construction work
on the Mid-Embarcadero project 1 , to perform the
Phase I construction work. Mr. O'Sullivan states
that such construction work includes: (a) site
preparation, including excavation and treatment of
1 The Mid-Embarcadero project includes roadway improvements, plaza and sidewalk
construction, concrete and granite work, and landscaping along the Mid-Embarcadero
roadway.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
potentially hazardous soil, (b) site paving, (c)
construction of concrete seats and wall, (d) planting
of lawn, and (e) the installation of lighting fixtures
within the Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse site.
2. DPW has provided the Budget Analyst with a copy
of the Human Rights Commission letter of
certification verifying that Stacy and Witbeck, Inc.,
which is a joint venture with Dillingham
Construction, Inc. to perform construction work on
the Mid-Embarcadero project, employs
subcontractors which qualify as Minority and
Women Owned Business Enterprises.
3. Mr. O'Sullivan states that DPW would select
contractors to perform the Phase II construction
work through a competitive bidding process. Such
work includes installation of a precast concrete
railing, installation of planters, and additional
electrical work. The Budget Analyst recommends
that $309,000 for Phase II construction costs
($349,000 less $40,000 for architectural and
engineering services) be reserved, pending selection
of a contractor and submission of budget details.
4. According to Ms. Deborah Learner of RPD.
architectural and engineering services would be
performed by Roma Designs, Inc., which was selected
through a competitive Request for Proposal process
to perform architectural and engineering services for
the Mid-Embarcadero project.
5. Ms. Learner states that the subject construction
work does not include the construction of an organ
pavilion. According to Ms. Learner, a pavilion would
be constructed at a later date and is expected to be
funded through private donations.
6. In 1985. the Board of Supervisors amended the
City's Municipal Code (Planning Code) to add Section
139. Section 139 established the Downtown Park
Fund, which provides a source of funds for the
acquisition and development of public recreation and
park facilities for the daytime population in
ROARD OF SUP ERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
downtown San Francisco. According to the Planning
Code, the Recreation and Park and Planning
Commissions have the joint responsibility of
administering and allocating funds from the
Downtown Park Fund for the acquisition and
development of public recreation and park facilities.
The Budget Analyst recommends that the title of the
subject ordinance be amended, to delete the reference
from "Neighborhood Development Special Revenue
Fund" and substitute "Downtown Park Fund".
7. According to the Controller's Office, as of April 13.
2000, the balance of the Downtown Park Fund is
$1,71 .vhich is $780, W4 more than the subject
appropriation of 5984,850.
Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to delete
Neighborhood Development Special Revenue Fund"
and substitute "Downtown Park Fund", as noted in
Comment No. 6.
2 Amend the proposed ordinance to reduce the
appropriation by S3. 297, from S984.850 to $981,553.
3. Of the $981,553 appropriation, reserve $309,000
for Phase II construction, as noted in Comment
3.
4. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
04-13-00 12:57 F rom-OPW/BOE
City and County of San Francisco
Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor
Mark A. Primeau, Architect, AIA, Director
415-553-4519
Attachment
Page 1 ot 2
(415) 558-4021
FAX (415) 553-4519
http://www.sfdpw.com
Department of Public Works
Project Management Division
30 Van Ness Avenue, 5 m Floor
San Francisco, CA 941 02-6020
Kathryn How. Assistant City Engineer
MEMORANDUM
To: Severin Campbell
3udget Analyst:
Frcrrt: Steve 0' Sullivan <- -jO
Project Manager
Date: April 13, 2000
RE:
Mid Embarcadero
Music Concourse
As requested, we are providing budget information for the Mid
Embarcadero Music Concourse. A design had been proposed for the
Mid Embarcadero Music Concourse by the Recreation and Park
Department. The Mid Embarcadero Roadway and F-Line Extension
Project that is currently under construction included some work
in the proposed Music Concourse site. Stacy and Witbeck, Inc is
the general contractor for the Mid Embarcadero Project. A
change order has been proposed for the Mid Embarcadero D roject
to construct a portion of the Music Concourse work. The change
order would result in savings since items that would have been
constructed under the original Mid Embarcadero Project's plans
would not need to be redone in the near future by the Music
Concourse Project. Some items that would not be beneficial to
be constructed at this time are excluded from the proposed
change order. This includes items with long lead times for
materials, that would not be available until after the
completion of the Mid Embarcadero Project. The following is a
summery of the proposed budget for the Music Concourse.
Budget for Proposed Change Order to Mid Embarcadero:
Architectural and Engineering Services $ 80,000
Construction Change Order to
Stacy and Witbeck, Inc Contract $ 469,112
Construction Contingency (10%) $ 45,"
DPW-Bureau of Construction Management Costs $ 2 6, 53C
Total
for Proccsed Chance Order Work
$ 632, 35 2
•IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO" We are dedicated .ncwtiuais committed x reamwerx.
customer ser/ica and centinuevs improvement ,n partnersnip #iv\ t.« community
Customer Sarvka Team-^crx Continuous Improvement
04-13-00 12:58
Frora-DPW/BGE
415-558-4519
Severin Campbell
April 13, 2000
Page 2 of 2
Atrachmen-t
Page 2 ot Z
The items for the proposed music concourse chat are excluded
from the proposed change order are the following:
Electrical Work
Precast Concrete Work
Planters
Total Excluded items
5110,000
5 75,000
$ 25,000
$220,000
It should be noted that if these excluded items are packaged
into a separate construction contract, an increase tc the above
costs would occur cue to additional mobilization and overhead
costs that would be incurred by a contractor. This increase is
estimated at. approximately twelve percent. Thus, the
construction costs for this work should be increased to
S247,C00. A proposed budget for the additional work that c
be constructed at as a second phase wculd be as fellows:
Architectural and Engineering Services
Construction
Construction contingency
D?W-3ureau of Construct :o3ts
Total Project Cost for Second Phase Work
:,ooo
",000
S 25,000
5 27,0C0
9,000
1 hope the abeve clarifies the Music Concourse costs. Feel free
to call me at 558-4047 if you need additional information.
cc: Fernando Cisnercs, DPW
Deborah Learner, Rec. Park
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 13 - File 00-0186
Department:
Item:
Description:
Department of Administrative Services (DAS)
Hearing to consider applications from various agencies
participate in the 2000 Joint Annual Fundraising Drive.
to
Section 16.93-3 of the Administrative Code requires the
Department of Administrative Services (a) to review all
applications from charitable organizations which request to
participate in the City's Annual Joint Fundraising Drive, and
(b) to recommend to the Board of Supervisors charitable
organizations which qualify to participate in the City's Annual
Joint Fundraising Drive in accordance with criteria set forth in
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code.
The Department of Administrative Services reports that it has
reviewed the applications from nine charitable organizations
that have applied to participate in the City's 2000 Annual Joint
Fundraising Drive in accordance with the criteria delineated in
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code. The Department of
Administrative Services reports that all nine charitable
organizations comply with the Section 16.93-2 criteria and
recommends that all nine organizations be approved to
participate in the City's 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive.
The summary of findings reported by the Department of
Administrative Services is contained in the Attachment to this
report.
Section 16.93-4 of the Administrative Code also requires,
pending final passage by Board of Supervisors (File 00-0479),
that the Board of Supervisors designate, by resolution, prior to
May 1, 2000, those agencies that qualify to participate in the
2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. The nine charitable
organizations that have applied and been recommended by the
Department of Administrative Services to participate in the
City's 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive are as follows:
• Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc.
• Community Health Charities of California (formerly
Combined Health Appeal of California)
• Earth Share of California (formerly Environmental
Federation of California. Inc.)
• Local Independent Charities
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comments:
• International Service Agencies
• Mayor's Fund for the Homeless
• The San Francisco Youth Fund (formerly the Mayor's
Youth Fund)
• United Way of the Bay Area
• The Mayor's Youth Employment for the Summer Fund
(for which the Private Industry Council serves as fiscal
agent)
1. Section 16.93-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code
states that deductions from employee pay warrants for
charitable organizations shall only be withheld based upon
authorizations made by employees in the Annual Joint
Fundraising Drive.
2. According to Ms. Jill Lerner of DAS, all of the
organizations listed above participated in the City's 1999
Annual Joint Fundraising Drive.
cording to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office,
one of the criteria for organizations participating in the
Annual Joint Fundraising Drive is that the organizations are
able to receive tax-deductible donation- as verifiable by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In practice, this means that
these organizations must either have the IRS 501c3
certification as non-profit organizations or be government
agencies. Further, in the event that a participating
organization has a fiscal agent, it is sufficient that that fiscal
agent have 501c3 standing or be a government agency, and,
in that case, it is not necessary that the participating
organization have 501c3 standing or be a government
agency. According to Ms. Lerner of DAS, the Private
Industry Council, which is the fiscal agent for the Mayor's
Youth Employment for the Summer Fund, meets this
criterion.
Recommendation:
Prepare in and report out a resolution designating the nine
qualifying charitable organizations, as recommended by the
Department of Administrative Services, to participate in the
City's 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Harvev M. Rose
cc: Supervisor Yee
Supervisor Bierman
President Ammiano
Supervisor Becerril
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Kaufman
Supervisor Leno
Supervisor Newsom
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Controller
Legislative Analyst
Erin McGrath
Stephen Kawa
Ted Lakey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Attachment
Page 1 ot 4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2000 Review of Applications
To Participate in Annual Joint Fundraising Drive
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
Our review consisted of an examination of the materials provided in File 000136 and
telephone conversations with representatives from applicant organizations. We were
advised by Deputy City Attorney Ted Lakey that telephone inquiries were approoriate to
clarify information supplied by the applicants. This is the same method we have use
past years to prepare this report to the Board of Supervisors.
All eight organizations that applied for participation in the 1999 Joint Fundraising Drive
were in compliance with the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors as
delineated in the Administrative Code.
CRITERIA
Following is a list of the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors and information
as to how the applicants met each requirement. New legislation enacted in 1997 includes
in the Annual Joint Fundraising Drive any Mayor's fund which is created to further
causes. Under Administrative Code Section 16.93-2, only subsections (b), I
apply to the Mayor's funds. All other agencies must sati.^ :
Criterion A : Be a federated agency r;-r -.ari table
organizations of which 50 percent shall represent organizations loc.r
the counties of Sap. Frarcisco. San Mate. - : ra. Alameda. C
Costa and Marin.
According to the City Atton :ounties" n
indraising or otherwi ties.
1. Bay Area Black United Fund. Inc.
Bay Area Black Unil
which are located in the Bay Ai
2. Community Hea
Community Health (
which 50 percent or more are ,rea.
Attachment
Page 2 of k
Summary of Findings
2000 Review of Applications
Page 2 of 4
3. Earth Share of California (Environme" r al Federation of California)
Earth Share of California represents over 75 organizations of which 50
percent or more are located in the Bay Area.
4. Local Independent Charities (LIC)
Local Independent Chanties represents over 150 organizations of which
50 percent or more are located in the Bay Area.
5. International Service Agencies (ISA)
International Service Agencies represents more than 40 charities of which
50 percent are located in the Bay Area.
6. United Way of the Bay Area
United Way of the Bay Area represents 1500 charities. 50 percent of
which are located in the Bav Area.
Criterion R- The federated agencv or Mayor's fund must certify to the Board of
Supervisors that the Federal Internal Revenue Service has determined that
contributions to ail of the represented charitable organizations or Mayor's
funds are tax deductible.
Based on consultation in years past with the City Attorney, we have concluded that al
applicants complied with this requirement.
Criterion C: The federated agencv must have been in existence with 10 or more
qualified charities for at least one vear prior to the date of application
and provide satisfactory evidence to that effect at the time of filing an
application uiih the Board. Mayor's funds shall submit their most recent
financial statement to the Board of Supervisors on an annual ,r wi<
This criterion wa
Attachment
Page 3 of 4
Summary of Findings
2000 Review of Applications
Pase 3 of 4
Criterion ~^ : The federated agencv must submit its most recent certified audit at 'he
time of* filing an application with the Br
All agencies provided these documents, as detailed below:
I. Bay Area Black United Fund. Inc. provided financial statements dated December
3 1, 1998 with an accompanying Auditors' Report by Grant & Smith, LLP dated
MaylS, 1999.
-. Community Health Charities of California pro', i :;al statements for the
year ended June 30, 1999 with the Independent Auditors' Report prepared bv
Rooney. Ida, Nolt and Ahem. CPAs, da:. <99.
3. Earth Share of California provided a statement of financial position for the
ended September 30, 1998 and an Auditors's Report dated February 4, 1999 by
Bregante & Company, LLP.
4. Local Independent Chanties provided Statements of
April 30, 1999 along iditor's Report bv Ma.-
Associates Accountancy Corporation dated October 20. 1999.
- national Ser. ice Agencies provided financ snts dated June 30, 1999
and 1998 along with Group, Ch
ted August 18, 1999.
6. United Way of the Ba\ .-'.
and a repon
Grant Thornton LLP dated Oc: -99.
Mayor's Homeless F : Code Seel
10. 1 17-33), pre . ;99.
Mayor's Youth Empl
>s its fisca
staternem
Auditor's Report b k Companj
the PIC subr
Attachment
Page 4 of 4
Summary of Findings
2000 Review of Applications
Pase 4 of 4
9. The San Francisco Youth Fund is served by the Every Child Can Learn
Foundation as its fiscal agent. The Foundation provided financial statements
dated June 30, 1999 and 1998 and an Independent Auditors report dated August 6
1999 from Hood & Strong LLP. It also provided a Statement of Operating
Activity As of 2/29/00.
Criterion E: Agencies that wish to participate in the Annual Drive are required tn
submit applications to the Board of Supervisors that include ail
information that may be relevant to the criteria listed in the Section
As stated earlier in this report, the City Attorney advised that the applications may be
considered complete although clarification may have been necessary to conduct this
review.
All applicants provided documentation in their letters of application to the Board of
Supervisors or confirmed by telephone that they are in compliance with the requirements
of Section 16.93-2 which constitutes "certification."
Therefore, all applicants were in compliance with Criterion E.
City and County of San Francisco
Meeting Minutes
Finance and Labor Committee
Members: Supervisors Leland lee. Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano
Clerk: Mary Red
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA
94102-4689
Wednesday, April 26, 2000
10:00 AM
Regular Meeting
City Hall, Room 263
Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano.
Members Absent: Sue Bierman.
Meeting Convened
The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m.
991963 [Conditional Use Authorization for Video Store|
Supervisors Yee, Ammiano
Ordinance amending Planning Code by amending each of the Neighborhood Commercial District Zoning
Control Tables in Article 7 to require video stores to obtain conditional use authorization in all neighborhood
commercial districts and adding Section 790.135 to define "video store"; adopting findings pursuant to
Planning Code Section 101.1.
(Adds Section 790.135; amends Article 7 Tables.)
(4/1 1/00, City Planning Resolution No. 15019 adopted April 6, 2000, recommending approval of the proposed
amendments to the City Planning Code dated 1/10/00. Determined to be categorically exempt from
environmental review as a General Rule Exclusion pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines.)
10/18/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Transportation and Land Use Committee, expires on 1 1/17/1999. 10 22 99 Transmuted
to Planning for Hearing and Recommendation
2/7/00, SUBSTITUTED. Submitted by Supervisor Yee in Board, bearing same title.
2/7/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Transportation and Land Use Committee, expires on 3/8/2000. 3/16/00 Transmitted to
Planning tor Hearing and Recommendation.
4/12/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. Transferred pursuant to memo dated April 6, 2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee: Paul Rosetter, City Planning Department: Chris Dittenhafer,
Council of District Merchants; Rae Doyle. Greater West Portal: Elizabeth M., Miraloma Park: Garrett
Jenkins, North of Market Planning Coalition.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
DOCUMENTS DEP"
MAY 1 2000
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
City and County of San Francisco
fnnt.Jat 12:49 I'M i>«
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
ipnl 20. 211011
000524 (Authorizing expenditure of fundi estimated at S4.210.000 for emergency repair ol S.ui Joaquin Pipeline
No. 3|
Resolution authorizing expenditure of funds lor emergency repair of corrosion in San Joaquin Pipeline No I
of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct (Public I tilities Commission)
(Fiscal impact )
3/22/Do. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance«nd I abor Committee
i 19/00, CON1 ini I D Continued to April 26, 2000.
Continued to May 3, 2t)tit). at request oj department
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000676 (Neighborhood Park General Obligation Bond Issuance]
Resolution providing for the issuance of not to exceed SI 10,000.000 aggregate principal amount ol < ity and
County of San Francisco General Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities
Improvement Bonds, 2000), including the issuance of an initial scries thereof in the aggregate principal
amount of not to exceed $6,180,000 and designated as the Cit) and ( < unity of San Francisco General
Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and Park facilities Improvement Bonds, 2000), Series 200
authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said Bonds; providing for the le\\ of a tax to pay
the principal and interest thereof; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said
Bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto; ratifj mg certain actions previously taken,
and granting general authority to City officials to tak.- necessary actions in connection with the authorization,
issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds t Mayi
4 12/00, REC1 IVED \sn KSSIGNI Dtol inanceand I abor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Supervisor ><■ he:. Deputy City
Attorney; Sarah Hollenbeek. Mayor's Office of Public Finance, Supervisor Ammiano, Elizabeth Goldstein,
Director, Operation and Planning, Recreation and Park Department. Dr Phil Day, Chancellor, S.F City
College. Bob Delesso. S.F. Zoo. Supervisor Ammiano
RECOMMENDF.D by the following \ote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000679 (Neighborhood Park General Obligation Bond Sale|
Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed S6. 180.000 City and County of San Francisco
General Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, 2000), Series
2000C; prescribing the form and terms of said Bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and
registration of said Bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said Bonds;
providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto; approving the forms of official notice of sale and
notice of intention to sell Bonds; directing the publication of the notice of intention to sell Bonds; approving
the form and execution of the official statement relating thereto; approving the form of the continuing
disclosure certificate; approving the modifications to documents; ratifying certain actions previously taken;
and granting general authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authonzation,
issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds. (Mayor)
4/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Supervisor Yee. Dave Sanchez, Deputy City
Attorney; Sarah Hollenbeek. Mayor's Office of Public Finance: Supervisor Ammiano; Elizabeth Golds:,
Director. Operation and Planning. Recreation and Park Department; Dr Phil Day. Chancellor. S.F. City
College; Bob Delesso, S.F. Zoo; Supervisor Ammiano. Amendment of the Whole
AMENDED. AN AMENDMENT OF THE \\ HOLE BEARING SAME TITLE.
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 12:48 PM on iT 00
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2000
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000677 [Community College General Obligation Bond Sale]
Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $29,605,000 City and County of San Francisco
General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facilities Bonds, 1997 - Community College District), Series 2000A;
prescribing the form and terms of said Bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said
Bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said Bonds; providing for the
establishment of accounts related thereto; approving the forms of official notice of sale and notice of intention
to sell Bonds; directing the publication of the notice of intention to sell Bonds; approving the form and
execution of the official statement relating thereto; approving the form of the continuing disclosure certificate;
approving modifications to documents; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and granting general
authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, sale and
delivery of said Bonds. (Mayor)
4/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Dave Sanchez, Deputy City
Attorney; Sarah Hollenbeck, Mayor's Office of Public Finance; Supervisor Ammiano; Elizabeth Goldstein,
Director, Operation and Planning, Recreation and Park Department; Dr. Phil Day. Chancellor, S.F. Cin-
College; Bob Delesso. S.F. Zoo; Supervisor Ammiano. Amendment of the Whole.
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE.
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000678 [Zoo General Obligation Bond Sale|
Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $17,440,000 City and County of San Francisco
General Obligation Bonds (Zoo Facilities Bonds, 1997), Series 2000B; prescribing the form and terms of said
Bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said Bonds; providing for the appointment
of depositories and other agents for said Bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto;
approving the forms of official notice of sale and notice of intention to sell Bonds; directing the publication of
the notice of intention to sell Bonds; approving the form and execution of the official statement relating
thereto; approving the form of the continuing disclosure certificate; approving modifications to documents:
ratifying certain actions previously taken; and granting general authority to City officials to take necessary
actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds. (Mayor)
4/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Daw Sanchez. Deputy City
Attorney; Sarah Hollenbeck, Mayor's Office of Public Finance; Supervisor Ammiano; Elizabeth Goldstein.
Director, Operation and Planning. Recreation and Park Department; Dr. Phil Day. Chancellor. S F City
College; Bob Delesso, S.F Zoo; Supervisor Ammiano. Amendment of the Whole.
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING S \MF. TITLE.
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Primed ol I2-.4SPM <m
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
Ipril 26, 20011
000432 |Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchants!
Supervisor Leno
Ordinance amending Article 3 of Pari III of die San Francisco Municipal (ode. by amending Section 250.
excepting certain transient merchants that operate at Moscone (enter or the Mill (iraham Civic Auditorium and
agree to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from the licensing and fee requirements
otherwise applicable to transient merchants under Article 3; and enabling enforcement by means of citation.
(Amends Section 250.)
3 13 00. ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY Kl I I to Finance and Labor C unaniU ec wtpirei o I
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Marti Paschal. Supervisor L fad
Moerschbaecher, Director. SF. Convention Fat. times Supervisor immiano Susan Leal. Treasurer. Richard
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee. Continued to May J 2000
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000433 (Amendment to Definition of Transient Merchant - Temporar) Business]
Supervisor Leno
Ordinance amending Article 3 of Pan III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 25 1,
defining the term temporary business to mean a business conducted for less than seven days, and excluding
pumpkin sellers from the definition of transit merchant.
(Amends Section 251.)
: 00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY Kl md Labor Commitlec. oq
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Marti Paschal. Supervisor Jack
Moerschbaecher. Director. SF. Convention Facilities, Supervisor immiano, Susan Leal. Treasurer; Richard
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee Continued to Ma) 3, 2000
CONTINUED by the following Note:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000434 [Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchants]
Supervisor Leno
Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part 111 of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 252.
excepting certain transient merchants that operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Auditorium and agree
to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from the requirement that they apply for a
license under Article 3.
(Amends Section 252.)
3 1 3 00. ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee. Rq 8/2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers; Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Marti Paschal. Supervisor Leno's Aide; Jack
Moerschbaecher. Director. SF Convention Facilities; Supervisor Ammiano. Susan Leal. Treasurer. Richard
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee. Continued to Ma) 3, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 12:*SPM on
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2000
000435 [Fee Reduction During Suspension Period)
Supervisor Leno
Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 253.
reducing the fees payable by transient merchants during the suspension period.
(Amends Section 253.)
3/1 3/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 4/12/2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marti Paschal, Supervisor Leno's Aide: Jack
Moerschbaecher, Director, S.F. Convention Facilities: Supervisor Ammiano; Susan Leal, Treasurer; Richard
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee. Continued to May 3, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000436 [Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchants Tax Return Filing)
Supervisor Leno
Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 254.
exempting those certain transient merchants that operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium and agree to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from the tax return
filing requirement otherwise applicable to transient merchants under Article 3; and exempting all other
transient merchants from such tax return filing requirement during the suspension period.
(Amends Section 254.)
3/13/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 4/1 2/2000.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Marti Paschal. Supervisor Leno's Aide; Jack
Moerschbaecher, Director, S.F. Convention Facilities; Supervisor Ammiano; Susan Leal, Treasurer; Richard
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee. Continued to May 3, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000437 [Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchantsl
Supervisor Leno
Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 255.
exempting those certain transient merchants that operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium and agree to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from [he bonding
requirement otherwise applicable to transient merchants under Article 3.
(Amends Section 255.)
3/13/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULF to Finance and labor Committee, expires on 4/12/2
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Marti Paschal. Supervisor Leno's Aide: Jack
Moerschbaecher, Director, S.F. Conventual Facilities; Supervisor Ammiano, Susan Leal. Treasurer; Richard
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee Continued to May 3, 2000.
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Pnnl.Jal /.V^/'W on i/27/00
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
\pril 26, 2000
000438 |Elimination of Penalty During Suspension Period - Violation of Article 3]
Supervisor I.eno
Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 257,
eliminating the penalty on transient merchants that violate the provisions of Article 3 during the suspension
period.
(Amends Section 257.)
3/13/00, A SSK, MI) UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 4 12/2000
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Marti Paschal, Supervisor Leno's lute. Jack
Moerschbaecher, Director, S.F Convention Facilities, Supervisor Ammiano Susan Leal Treasurer. Richard
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee ( Unturned to May 3, 2000
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000439 [Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchants - I icensing Requirements]
Supervisor Leno
Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 258,
exempting those certain transient merchants that operate at Fvfoscone Center or the Hill Graham Auditorium
and agree to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from the licensing requirements
otherwise applicable to transient merchants under Art' Je 3.
(Amends Section 258.)
3/13/00, ASSIGNED l MM K 30 DAY Kit I to I inance and Ubor Committee, ej
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst, Marti Paschal Supt ■ tide, Jack
Moer.sclihaeciier. Director. S.F. Convention Facilities, Supervisor immiano Susan . rer Richard
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee < bntinued to May 3, 2000
CONTINUED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000598 |Se\ver Replacement. 4th Street|
Resolution approving the expenditure of funds for the emergency work to replace the structurally inadequate
sewer on 4th Street between Bryant Street and Brannan Street - $542,540. ( Public I tihties Commission)
4 4 00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose. Budget Analyst; Christine Tang. Department of Public Works
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at i:.-4S PM on 4 27/W
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2000
000606 [Acquisition of noise easements for the purpose of satisfying a part of State-mandated noise mitigation
requirements)
Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 1,764 noise easements located in the cities of Daly City (1,260) and
San Bruno (490) and in unincorporated San Mateo County ( 14) with funding provided by the Airport's
Commercial Paper Program up to a total of $34.2 million dollars. (Real Estate Department)
(Fiscal impact.)
4/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi. Department of Real Estate.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000609 [Acquisition of noise easements for the purpose of satisfying a part of State-mandated noise mitigation
requirements!
Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 3 18 noise easements from property owners located in the cities of
Pacifica (70), Daly City (26), San Bruno (53), South San Francisco (155) and San Mateo County ( 14) as part
of the Airport Master Plan Memorandum of Understanding between the Airport and its neighboring
communities for 2000/2001. (Real Estate Department)
4/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi. Department of Real Estate
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000610 [Withdrawal of one property owner in San Mateo County from noise insulation program and delivery of
quitclaim deed to said property owner]
Resolution authorizing the conveyance of one ( 1 ) quitclaim deed to a property owner in the City of Pacifica to
rescind a grant of easement (noise easement deed) previously acquired by San Francisco. (Real Estate
Department)
4/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi. Department of Real Estate.
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000613 |Lease of property across the New Main Library for the Dept. of the Environment's Eco (enter which
will provide public outreach and education on local environmental issues|
Resolution authorizing a lease at 1212 Market Street for the Department of the Em ironmenl and accepting
donations of materials and services. (Real Estate Department)
4/5/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Tony DeLucchi, Department of Real Estate,
Bill Lee. City Administrator; Supervisor Ammiano, Mark Weston, Department of the Environment. Erin
McGrath. Miner's Budget Office
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 1 2:4S I'M ,.n 4 r 00
Finance and Labor Committee
Meeting Minutes
tpnl 2t>, 2000
000464 [Appropriating funds for the installation of an air conditioning system at the Chinatown Branch
Library]
Supervisors iNewsom, Becerril
Ordinance appropriating $205,537 of Public library capital improvement Bond interest earnings to capital
improvement projects (Branch library improvement - Chinatown renovations) tor the Public Library lor fiscal
year 1999-2000. (Controllei )
(Fiscal impact.)
00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Susan Hildreth, Acting City Librarian. James ( 'hafiu Peta It (afield, Milton
Owyang; Supervisor Yee.
RECOMMENDED by the follov»ine \..lc:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000615 [Appropriating funds for books, computer equipment, software, electrical upgrades in the branch
libraries and furniture/fixtures to support the Ingleside Branch]
Ordinance appropriating $857,878 of Library Preservation funds for relocation of the Ingleside Branch
Library, renovation of electrical systems in the branch libraries, and to purchase books, computer equipment
and software, materials and supplies, furniture and fixtures and equipment for various library locations, for
fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller)
4/5/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to I inanceand Labor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Anal) U, Susan Hildreth. Acting ( 'ity Librarian. James
Chafee; Peter Warfield; Ed Harrington. Controller. Supervisor ) •. . Amended to plat e $145,000 on n
AMENDED.
Ordinance appropriating SS57.S78 of Library Preservation Funds for relocation of the Ingleside Branch
Library, renovation of electrical systems in the branch libraries, and to purchase books, computer equipment
and software, materials and supplies, furniture and fixtures and equipment tor various library locations, for
fiscal year 1999-2000; placing $145,000 on reserve. (Controller)
(Fiscal impact.)
RECOMMENDED \S VM ENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
000623 [Prop J, Contracting Out Security Guard Services!
Resolution concurring retroactively with the Controller's determination that security guard sen ices can
practically be performed at the Bureaus of Engineering and Construction Management Offices at 1680
Mission Street by private contractor for a lower cost than if the sen ices were performed by City employees.
(Public Works Department)
4 6 00, RECEP/ED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee
Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst
RECOMMENDED by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
City and County of San Francisco
Printed at 12:48 PM on
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 26, 2000
000716 [Possible Closure of Newcomer High School]
Supervisor Yee
Hearing to discuss the future of Newcomer High School, which the San Francisco Unified School District is
considering to close down.
4/17/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee.
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee; Eddie Chin, Commissioner, Board of Education; Tim
Tronson, S.F. Unitified School District; Fong Kwok Chun. PTA, Newcomer School; Mario Delgado; Frank
Messenger, Teacher, Newcomer School; Jose Esponoza: Jennefer Berger, Partners in Learning; Jessica
Young; Greg Collins, Teacher; Superxisor Ammiano.
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote:
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano
Absent: 1 - Bierman
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:42 p.m.
City and County of San Francisco » rr '"" J * '*<■ ' M ' "" J •' " ""
25¥
[Budget Analyst Report]
Susan Horn
Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section
CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461
Apnl2a ^CUMENTSDEPT.
APR 2 4 2000
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee
FROM: Budget Analyst
• FRANCISCO
SUBJECT: .April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting p UBLIC LIBRARY
Item 2 - File 00-0524
Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its
meeting of April 19, 2000.
Department:
Item:
Comment:
Recommendation:
Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Hetch Hetchy Water and Power
Resolution authorizing the expenditure of funds estim
at $4,210,000 for emergency repair of corrosion in the San
Joaquin Pipeline No. 3 of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct.
Mr. Larry Klein of the PUC has requested that the
proposed resolution be continued for one u
Continue this resolution for one week as requested by
Mr. Klein.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Items 3 and 4 - Files 00-0676 and 00-0679
Department:
Items:
Recreation and Park Department (RPD)
Item 3. File No. 00-0676 : Resolution providing for the
issuance of not to exceed $110,000,000 aggregate
principal amount of City and County of San Francisco
General Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and
Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, 2000), including the
issuance of an initial Beries thereof in the aggregate
principal amount of not to exceed $6,180,000 and
designated as the City and County of San Francisco
General Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and
Park Facilities Improvement Bonds. 2000), Series 2000C;
authorizing the execution, authentication and registration
of said bonds; providing for the levy of a tax to pay the
principal and interest thereof; providing for the
appointment of depositories and other agencies for said
bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts rel.:
thereto; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and
granting general authority to City officials to take
necessary actions in connection with the authorization,
issuance, and sale and delivery of said bonds.
Item 4. File No. 00-0679 : Resolution authorizing and
directing the sale of not to exceed $6,180,000 City and
County of San Francisco General Obligation Bonds
(Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilr
Improvement Bonds. 2000), Series 2000C, which would be
the initial series of the bonds; prescribing the form and
terms of said bonds; providing for the appointment of
depositories and their agencies for said bonds; providing
for the establishment of accounts related thereto;
approving the forms of Official Notice of Sale and Notice
of Intention to Sell bonds; directing the publication of the
Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds: approving the form and
execution of the Official Statement relating thereto;
approving the form of the Continuing Disclosure
Certificate: approving modifications to documents:
ratifying certain actions previously taken: and granting
general authority to City officials to take necessary
actions in connection with the authorization, issuance,
sale and deliverv of said bonds.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
2
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Amounts:
Amounts for the issuance and sale of the Neighborhood
Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, 2000
covered by the subject resolutions are as follows:
Description
Amount
Item 3, File 00-0676
Authorization for Issuance of
General Obligation Neighborhood Recreation
and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds
$110,000,000
Item 4, File 00-0679
Authorization for Sale of the Initial Series of the
above General Obligation Neighborhood
Recreation and Park Facilities
Improvement Bonds (Series 2000C)
$6,180,000
Description:
In March of 2000, San Francisco voters approved the
issuance of $110,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds,
known as the Neighborhood Recreation and Park
Facilities Improvement Bonds, to provide for the
acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of
neighborhood recreation and park facilities and
properties. Item 3. File No. 00-0676 would establish the
general terms and procedures for the issuance of the
Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities
Improvements Bonds, and Item 4, File No. 00-0679 would
provide specific approval to sell the initial series of said
bonds, in an aggregate principal amount of up to
S6. 180,000 (Series 2000C).
Item 3. File 00-0676
The proposed resolution would authorize the issuano
an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $110,000,000
of Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities
Improvement Bonds, 2000, for the acquisition,
construction and/or reconstruction of neighborhood
recreation and park facilities and properties.
General provisions regarding the proposed issuance vi' the
Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities
Improvement Bonds are as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
3
Memo to Finance and Labor Committt e
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
The bonds shall be divided into series, as authorized
by the Board of Supervi
An initial series of Bonds in the aggregate principal
amount of up to $6,180,000 (Series 2000C) would be
created and established (see below. Item 4, File 00-
0679, for the specific provisions of the said series).
Property taxes collected to redeem the bonds would be
deposited in the special funds account, which would be
created specifically for this purp<
The proceeds of the sale of the bonds would be
deposited into a Project Account, maintained by the
City Treasurer, and would be applied exclusively to
the projects approved under the subject Bond.
The City Treasurer may appoint fiscal agents or
financial institutions to distribute bond interest and
principal payments.
The Board of Supervisors may. by resolution,
authorize and direct the sale of any series of bonds to
provide for the defeasance of su:h series bonds.
Item 4. File No. 00-0679
The proposed resolution would authorize and direct the
sale of the initial series of the Neighborhood Recreation
and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds. 2000 (Series
2000C) in a principal amount not to exceed S6. 180,000.
The proposed resolution would also approve the form and
terms of the documents and official notices related to the
sale, and authorize City officials to take various actions
necessary to carry out the sale of bonds.
The Recreation and Park Department proposes to expend
the estimated $6. 180.000 in bond proceeds as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
4
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Project
Design
1
Construction
/Acquisition
Total
Acquired Natural .Areas
8500,000
8500,000
Aptos Playground
8160,000
160,000
Chinese Rec Center
800,000
800,000
Dog Parks
150,000
150,000
300,000
Erosion Control
100,000
400,000
500.000
Esprit Park
800,000
800,000
Helen Wills Clubhouse
81.744
81,744
Mission Playground
Clubhouse (ADA)
200,000
200,000
North Beach Clubhouse
400,000
400,000
Randall Museum
650,000
700,000
1,350,000
Variety of Improvements of
75,000
525,000
600,000
Disability Access
Youngbloods Soccer Field
450.000
450,000
Total Project Costs
$2,016,744
$4,125,000
$6,141,744
Cost of Issuing Bonds
38.256
Total Costs
$6,180,000
Attachment I to this report, provided by the Recreation
and Park Department, contains a description for each of
these projects.
The proposed resolution pertains to the sale of $6,180,000
in Series 2000C General Obligation Bonds. Upon sale of
the subject bonds, the remaining amount of unsold bonds
would equal $103,820,000.
General provisions regarding the sale of the bonds would
be as follows:
• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled for May
31, 2000.
• Under the proposed resolution, the bonds would be
sold at an interest rate that could not exceed 12
percent per year and will mature no later than June
15, 2026, or in 26 years.
• An official statement describing the proposed bonds to
be issued is referenced in the proposed resolution for
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
5
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meet in •:
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The official
statement would be available to all potential bidders
for the bonds.
Bonds would be awarded to the bidder whose bid
represents the lowest interest cost to the City.
Comments: 1. Including Item 5, File 00-0677 and Item 6, File 00-0678
of this report to the Finance and Labor Committee, the
Mayor's Office proposes to sell General Obligation Bonds
in a total amount not to exceed $53,225,000, in May of
2000. Series 2000 C in the amount of $6,180,000 is the
subject this resolution.
2. Under this proposed resolution (Item 1. Pile 00-0679),
the annual interest rate for the (6, 180.000 in the initial
Series 2000 C of the Neighborhood Recreation and Park
Facilities Improvement Bonds could not exceed 12
percent. However, Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the M.:
Office reports that if the bond i in May of 2000,
the bonds would probably be sold at an overall effe
interest rate of approximately 5.91 percent.
3. According to Ms. Hollenbeck. the proposed sale of
Series 2000 C in the amount of $6,180,000 would result in
total interest costs of $4,528,687, and total debt service of
approximately $10,708,687 ($6,180,000 in principal costs
plus $4,528,687 in interest) over the 20-year life of the
bonds. The average d> e payment per year would
be approximately $535,434.
4. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the proposed sale of the
total of $53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as
noted in Comment No. 1 above, would result in total
interest costs of $38,982,538, and total debt service of
approximately S92. 207.538 ($53,225,000 in principal costs
plus $38,982,538 in interest) over the 20-year life of the
bonds. The average debt service payment per year would
be approximately $4,610,376.
5. According to Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's Office,
the proposed Series 2000 C sale of the Neighborhood
Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds in the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
6
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
amount of $6,180,000 would result in an increase in the
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00076 per $100 of
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay $2.98 in
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of
these bonds.
6. Ms. Carey states that the proposed sale of the total of
$53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in
Comment No. 1 above, would result in an increase in the
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00653 per $100 of
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay $25.66 in
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of
these bonds.
7. As stated in Attachment II, provided by the Mayor's
Office, Ms. Hollenbeck states that the City's General
Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to three
percent of the City's net assessed property value, is
$2,114,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of
$70,481,563,870 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Ms.
Hollenbeck states that, as of April 15, 2000, the City had
outstanding $ 903,500,000 aggregate principal amount of
General Obligation Bonds, not including the subject
Bonds of this resolution, which is equal to 1.28 percent of
the net assessed valuation. Therefore, Ms. Hollenbeck
advises that the City's current available General
Obligation bonding capacity is approximately
$1,210,946,916. The proposed sale of bonds in the total
amount of $53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds
would reduce the City's bonding capacity from
$1,210,946,916 to approximately $1,157,721,916. Ms.
Hollenbeck advises that the City's bonding capacity varies
from time to time as bonds are repaid and new bonds
issued.
8. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the cost of selling
$6,180,000 in Series 2000 C Neighborhood Recreation and
Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, including lees for
private bond counsel, financial advisors, financial
printing, and the services of the Mayor's Office of Public
Finance and City Attorney, are expected to be
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
7
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
approximately $38,256. or approximately 0.6 percent of
the total value of the bonds issued.
9. Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize
the sale of up to $6,180,000 in General Obligation
Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities
Improvement Bonds (Series 2000 C). However, all future
expenditure appropriations of the bond proceeds, would
be subject to separate approval by the Board of
Supervisors through supplemental appropriations
ordinances.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
ity and County of San Francisco
Attachment I
Page 1 of 2
Recreation and Park Department
DATE: April 20, 2000
TO: Emiiie Neumann, Budget Analyst's Office
FROM: Deborah Learner, Park Planner, Recreation and Park Department QO
RE:
Spnng Bond Sale - Project Descriptions
1 . Acquire Natural Areas - $500,000 - Acquire natural areas at Palou Phelps and Edgehiil
2. Aptos Playground - S160.000: For masterpianning and design for park improvements;
will include consideration of penmeter improvements, infrastructure and recreational
needs.
3. Chinese Recreation Center - $300,000: For design. The recreation center's intenor
and exterior will need to be either completely refurnished or possibly reconstructed.
Tne building was reported to have a high seismic rating. These funds will be
augmented by a State allocation for improvements to the play area.
4. Dog Parks - $150,000: For the design and improvement of various existing dog parks
as well as potential new sites. Funding will support community process as well as
plans and specifications.
5. Erosion Control- $100,000 design/S9, 000,000 construction: Severe erosion problems
exist at numerous sites including West Sunset Playground, Noe Courts, Koshland
Park, Buena Vista Park. Stem Grove and Glen Park.
6. Espnt Park - $800,000: Acquisition of developed park owned by private corporation.
Funds will be augmented by Open Space funds previously appropriated for this
purpose.
7. Helen Wills Clubhouse - $81,744: For design. For improvements to the clubhouse,
additional funds are available through the Open Space Program for construction of the
play area to augment facility improvements. Also an UPPAR (Federal grant funding)
application has been submitted to construct the clubhouse improvements.
Mission Playground Clubhouse ADA - $200,000: For construction of ADA
improvements in the dubhcuse. This work scope will be added the project scooethat
has been funded through Open Space to improve ADA access to the adjacent pool.
:!_aren Lodge, Golden Gate Park
1 Stanyan Stre«t
n Francisco, CA 94117-1398
FAX: (415)665-7130
Phone: (415) 831-2700
Attachment I
Page 2 of -
9. North Beach Playground Clubhouse - $400,000: Constructjcn for improvements to the
clubhouse. Plans are included an as alternate in the pool project funded through Open
Space that is currently out to bid.
10. Randall Museum - 5650,000: Design to address plans and specifications tc continue to
implement the Museum's Master Plan for exterior and interior improvements.
$700,000: Construction to complete funding for die Phase I extenor lancscape and
ADA improvements.
11. ADA /Courts, paths and sidewalks - S75.0C0: For design to provide ADA access and
pathway improvements to address safety hazards at numerous facilities.
$525,000: Fcr construction to implement ADA and pathway improvements.
1 2. Youngblood - $450,000 Construction of synthetic turf soccer field, ADA improvements.
seni>3 tone: saie-neumann4-2O-0C
10
Attachment II
OFFICE Or THE MAYOR
CITY HALL
DR. CARLTON B . GOODLETT PL AC
SAX FRANCISCO, C A 9 4 1 : :
MEMORANDUM
TO: EMEJE NEUMANN
FROM: KAREN R3BLZ
SARAK KOLLENBECK
SUBJECT: GENERAL OBLIGATION 30NDS, SERIES 2CCQA, 3, AND C
DATE: :- 19/(X
The City's General Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to three percent :: the Civ's - j -
assessed property value, is S2, 114,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of 570 481 563 87C for
Fiscal Year 1999-CG. As of April 15, 2CCC, the City had outstanding S9G5,5OO,CC0 aggregate orindoal
amount of General Obiigadon Bonds, not including the subject Bends of this resoiudon. which ; -
equai to 1.2S percent of the net assessed valuadon Therefore, the City's current available General
Obiigadon bonding capacity is approximately S1JZ 10,946,9 16. Tne procosed sale of bonds in the
total amount of S53,225,CCC would reduce the City's bending capacity from SI ''10946 916 to
approximately SI, 157,721,916. However, the Gry's bonding capacity varies from time to time as
Denes are reoaid and new bonds issued
11
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 5 - File 00-0677
Department:
Item:
Community College District
Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to
exceed $29,605,000 City and County of San Francisco
General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facilities Bonds,
1997 - Community College District), Series 2000A;
prescribing the form and terms of said bonds; authorizing
the execution, authentication and registration of said
bonds; providing for the appointmenl of depositories and
(it her agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment
of accounts related thereto; approving the forms of officiaJ
Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds;
directing the publication of the Notice of Intention to Sell
Bonds: approving the form and execution of the Official
Statement relating thereto; approving the form of the
Continuing Disclosure Certificate; approving modifications
to documents; ratifying certain actum.- previously taken:
and granting general authority to City officials to take
necessary actions in connection with the authorization.
issuance, sale and deliv id bonds.
Amount:
Description:
Series Description Amount
2000A Educational Facilities Bonds
Community College District $29,605,000
In June of 1997, San Francisco voters approved the
issuance of $140,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds for
educational facilities for the San Francisco Unified School
District and the Community College District. Of the
$140,000,000, $50,000,000 was to provide funding for the
acquisition. construction. and/or reconstruction of
educational facilities for the Community College District.
On June 29, 1999. the City issued the first series of bonds
on behalf of the Community College District in the amount
of $20,395,000 (Educational Facilities Bonds, 198
Community College District). Series 1999A. The remaining
authorized amount equals $29,605,000 ($50,000,000 less
$20,395,000).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
12
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Bond proceeds from Series 1999A in
$20,460, 150 1 were appropriated by
Supervisors as follows (File 99-1573):
the
the
amount
Board
of
of
Land acquisition to be used for
campuses for the Community College District in
Chinatown and Mission District
$9,095,793
Health and safety upgrades
2,745,715
Disability access improvements
250,457
Renovation projects
2,003,834
Technology, network, and electrical
upgrades
5,967,427
Childcare facilities
250,000
Bond issuance costs
79,211
Debt service costs
67.713
Total
$20,460,150
The Community College District proposes to expend bond
proceeds from the proposed subject sale of $29,605,000 in
Series 2000A bonds as follows:
Land acquisition to be used for
campuses for the Community College
District in Chinatown and Mission
District
$804,207
Health and safety upgrades
8,251,341
Disability access improvements
741,760
Renovation projects
7,427,791
Technology, network, and electrical
upgrades
10,476,544
Childcare facilities
1,725,983
Subtotal, Construction Fund
$29,427,626
Bond issuance costs
177.374
Total
$29,605,000
Attachment I, provided by the Community CoDege District,
provides a description of the above projects.
The proposed resolution pertains to the sale of $29,605,000
in Series 2000A General Obligation Bonds, which
1 According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office of Public Finance, the City sold General
Obligation bonds totaling $20,395,000, and actual bond proceeds, including interest earnings, totaled
$20,460,150 (File No. 99-1573).
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
13
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
represents the remaining authorized amount of the General
Obligation Bonds approved by the electorate in June of
1997 for the Community College District.
General provisions regarding the sale of the bonds would be
as fcl'.ows:
• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled for May
31, 2000.
• Under the proposed resolution, the bonds would be sold
at an interest rate which could not exceed 12 percent per
year and will mature no later than June 15. 2026, or 26
years.
• Property Taxes collected to redeem the bonds would be
deposited in the special funds account which would be
created specifically for this purpose.
• An official statement describing the proposed bonds to
be issued is referenced in the proposed resolution for
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The official
statement would be available to all potential bidders for
the bonds.
• Bonds would be awarded to thf bidder whose bid
represents the lowest interest cost to the I
• The City Treasurer may appoint fiscal agents or
financial institutions to distribute bond interest or
principal payments.
Comments: 1. Including Item 4. File 00-0679, and Item 6. File 00-0678
of this report to the Finance and Labor Committee, the
Mayor's Office pr< \ sell General Obligation Bon
a total amount not to exceed $53,225,000. in May of 2000.
Series 2000A in the amount of $29,605,000 is the subject of
this resolution.
2. Under the proposed resolution, the annual interest rate
for the bonds could not exceed 12 percent. However, Ms.
Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office reports that if the
bonds are sold in May of 2000. the bonds would probably be
sold at an overall effective interest rate of approximately
I percent.
3. According to Ms. Hollenbeck. the proposed sale of Series
2000A in the amount of $29,605,000 would result in total
interest costs of approximately S21.682.026. and total debt
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
14
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
service of approximately $51,287,026 ($29,605,000 in
principal costs plus S21.682.026 interest) over the 20-year
life of the bonds. The average debt service payment per
year would be approximately 82.564,351.
4. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the proposed sale of the total
of $53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in
Comment No. 1 above, would result in total interest costs of
approximately $38,982,538, and total debt service of
approximately $92,207,538 ($53,225,000 in principal costs
plus $38,982,538 in interest) over the 20-year life of the
bonds. The average debt service pajnaient per year would be
approximately $4,610,376.
5. According to Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's Office, the
proposed Series 2000A sale of Educational Facilities Bonds,
Community College District, in the amount of $29,605,000
would result in an increase in the Property Tax rate of
approximately $0.00363 per $100 of assessed value. At
that rate, the owner of a single family residence assessed at
$400,000 would pay $14.27 in additional Property Taxes
annually due to the issuance of these bonds.
6. Ms. Carey states that the proposed sale of the total
$53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in
Comment No. 1 above would result in an increase in the
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00653 per $100 of
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay $25.66 in
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of
these bonds.
7. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the cost of selling $29,605,000
in Series 2000A Education Facilities Bonds, Community
College District, including fees for private bond counsel,
financial advisors, financial printing, and the services of
the Mayor's Office of Public Finance and City Attorney, are
expected to be approximately $177,374, or approximately
0.6 percent of the total value of the bonds issued.
8. As stated in Attachment II, provided by the Mayor's
Office, Ms. Hollenbeck states that the City's General
Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to three
percent of the City's nel assessed property value, is
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
15
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
82,114,446.916 based on a net assessed valuation of
$70,481,563,870 for Fiscal Year L999-2000. Ms. Hollenbeck
states that, as of April 15. 2000. the City had outstanding
$903,500,000 aggregate principal amount of General
Obligation Bonds, not including the subject Bonds of this
resolution, which is equal to 1.28 percent of the net
assessed valuation of $70,481,563,870. Therefore. Ms.
Hollenbeck advises that the City's current available
General Obligation bonding capacity is approximately
SI. 2 10, 946.916. The proposed sale of bonds in the total
amount of $53,225,000 would reduce the City's bonding
capacity from $1,210,946,916 to approximately
$1,157,721,916. However. Ma Hollenbeck advises that the
City's bonding capacity varies from time to time as bonds
are repaid and new bonds are issued.
9. Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the
sale of up to $29,605,000 in Educational Facilities Bonds,
Community College District, Series 2000A. However, all
future expenditure appropriations of the bond proceeds
would be subject to separate approval by the Board of
Supervisors through supplemental appropriation
ordinances.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
16
Attachment I
Page 1 of 2
VICE CHANCELLOR OF FINANCE Qc ADMINISTRATIO N
33 COUCH STREET • SAN FRANCISCO. CA MI03-I2U . 415. 2«:.2ZZ9 . r AX 415. 241 .23^
To: Sevenn CampbejL Budget Analyst's Office
From: Peter Goldstein, Vice Chancellor Finance & Administration
Re: Community College District's Proposed Use of Bond Proceeds
Date: April 20, 2000
In response to your request I am providing additional information related to the
Community College District's proposed uses of bond proceeds. The attached
spreadsheet shows the breakout of proposed spending by category and by site.
The narrative below provides further detail on the proposed uses of this funding.
The largest portion of the College's proposed expenditures is for continuing the
construction of the computer network with associated electrical upgrades. A total
of $1 0,476,544 will be spent in this area for items such as building wiring,
network cabling, and electrical panels. When completed, the College expects to
exceed its promise to the public to create a network that connects 50% of the
classrooms in buildings the College owns as well as 25% of the classrooms in
buildings the College leases.
The second largest area of activity for this bond sale is health and safety
projects. A total of $8,251 ,341 will be spent for items such as replacing forty to
eighty year old windows and doors, repainng plumbing, upgrading ventilation
systems, replacing outdated fire-life safety systems, and replacing roof
coverings. When these projects are completed the College will have addressed
all of the major health and safety issues in the buildings it owns.
The third largest area of activity for this bond sale is renovation projects. A total
of $7,427,791 will be spent for items such as replacement of worn out floor and
ceiling coverings, repainting of exterior and interior walls, improvements to
existing heating and ventilation systems, and reconfiguring existing space for
more efficient use. While considerable progress will be made in this area, it is far
short of the amount needed to upgrade the more than 1.1 million square feet of
space in all College-owned facilities.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OR. ANITA CRICK, 'RESIDEr.'" • ROOI« T ' VMNI, Vl« R*»IO«NT • 3« naTaliC BC1C
X09EXT E ec«TON • JAMES MlSKC. M»YO, II • OOOKL t BODIS • JWBENCt *ONO
OR. PWILIP R OAY. .».. CHANCE 0»
-^t^. 17 -lC-)~i_H-.— VI ^_>J_IH
Pape 2 ot 'z
The fourth area of activity for this bond sale is childcare facilities. A total of
$1,725,983 will be spent to improve the existing childcare facility located at the
Phelan Campus. The money will be spent on new lighting, heating and plumbing
systems, as well as new interior finishes and play structures. The College
upgraded the childcare facility at its John Adams Campus with proceeds from the
first bond sale.
The final area of activity for this bond sale is in the land acquisition category.
The $804,207 earmarked for this item is not for acquiring any additional property.
Instead it is needed to pay for the buyout provision contained in the lease of a
commercial occupant of the property the College acquired for its new Mission
Campus.
Thank you for your assistance and do not hesitate to contact me at 241.2229 if
you need any additional information.
Cc: Dr. Phillip Day
Karen Ribble
18
19'
,4:53 CCSF PUBLIC FINANCE
ALiacnneuL n
TEL: 415 554 4864
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
CITY KALL
1 DR. CARLTON B . GOOD LETT PLACE
SAN FRANCISCO, C A 94102
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
EMTLIE NEUMANN
KAREN RUBLE
SARAH HOLLENBECK
SUBJECT: GENERAL OBUGATIION BONDS. SERIES 2000A, B. AND C
DATE; 04/19/00
The City's General Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to chree percent of die Gty's net
assessed property value, is 52,114,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of $70,481363,870 for
Fiscal Year 1999-00. As of April 15, 200U, rhe City had outstanding $903,500,000 aggregate principal
amount of General Obligation Bonds, not including die sublet Bonds of this resolution, which is
equal to 1.28 percent of die net assessed valuation. T.erefore, die City's current available General
Obligation bonding capacity is approximately $1,210,946,916. The proposed sale of bends in the
total amount of $53,225,000 would reduce die City's bonding capacity from $1,210,946,916 to
approximately $1,157,721,916. However, die City's bonding capacity varies from rime to time as
bonds are repaid and new bonds issued.
18a
Memo to Finance and Labor Committi
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Commit 1 1 ■•
Item 6 - File 00-0678
Department:
Item:
Amount:
San Francisco Zoo
Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to
exceed $17,440,000 City and County of San Francisco
General Obligation Bonds (Zoo Facilities Bond- I
Series 2000B; prescribing the form and terms of said bonds;
authorizing the execution, authentication and registration
of said bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories
and other agents for said bonds; providing for the
establishment of accounts related thereto: approving the
forms of official Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to
Sell Bonds; directing the publication of the Notice of
Intention to Sell Bonds: approving the form and execution
of the Official Statement relating thereto; approving the
form of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate: approving
modifications to documents; ratifying certain actions
previously taken; and granting general authority to City
officials to take necessary actions in connection with the
authorization, issuance, sale, and delivery of said bonds.
Series
2000B
Description
Zoo Facilities Bond
Amount
slT 140,000
Description:
In June of 1997, San Francisco voters approved the
issuance of $48,000,000 in General Obligation bonds to
provide funding for the acquisition, construction, and/or
reconstruction of facilities for the San Francisco Zoo. On
June 29, 1999, the City issued the first series of bonds on
behalf of the San Francisco Zoo in the amount of
S16.S45.000 (Zoo Facilities Bonds. 1997). Series 1999C. The
remaining authorized amount of Zoo Facilities Bonds equal
$31,155,000 ($48,000,000 less $16,845,000).
Proceeds from the sale of the first series of Zoo Facilities
bonds totaled S 16.898.895. The Board of Supervisors
appropriated funds in that amount in October of 1999 (File
No. 99-1912) for various Zoo renovation and construction
projects, as shown in Attachment I. provided by the Zoo,
Proceeds from the proposed sale of the second series of Zoo
Facilities bonds, which are the subject of this resolution,
totaling S17.440.000. would be used as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
19
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Entrance and Zoo Street
Madagascar Facility
Quarantine and Holding Facility
Subtotal, Construction Funds
Cost of Issuance
Total
$13,114,827
1,974,695
2.246.811
$17,336,333
103.667
$17,440,000
Attachments I and II, provided by the Zoo, contain
additional budget details and a description of each of these
projects.
The proposed resolution pertains to the sale of $17,440,000
in Series 2000B General Obligation Bonds. Upon sale of
the subject bonds, the remaining amount of unsold bonds
would equal $13,715,000.
General provisions regarding the sale of the bonds would be
as follows:
Comments:
• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled for May
31, 2000.
• Under the proposed resolution, the bonds would be sold
at an interest rate which could not exceed 12 percent per
year and would mature no later than June 15, 2026, or
26 years.
• Property Taxes collected to redeem the bonds would be
deposited in the special funds account which would be
created specifically for this purpose.
• An official statement describing the proposed bonds to
be issued is referenced in the proposed resolution for
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The official
statement would be available to all potential bidders for
the bonds.
• Bonds would be awarded to the bidder whose bid
represents the lowest interest cost to the City.
• The City Treasurer may appoint fiscal agents or
financial institutions to distribute bond interesl or
principal payments.
1. Including Item 4, File 00-0679, and Item 5, File OO-OCTT
of this report to the Finance and Labor Committoo. the
Mayor's Office proposes to sell General Obligation Bonds in
a total amount not to exc 1 $53,225,000, in May of 2000.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
20
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Series 2000B in the amount of $17,440,000 is the subject of
this resolution.
2. Under the proposed resolution, the annual interest rate
for the bonds could not exceed 12 percent. However, Ms.
Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office reports that, if the
bonds are sold m May of 2000, the bonds would probably In-
sold at an overall effective interest rate of approximately
5.91 percent.
3. According to Ms. Hollenbeck, the proposed sale of S-
2000B in the amount of $17,440,000 would result in total
interest costs of approximately $12,771,824, and total debt
service of approximately $30,211,82 140,000 plus
$12,771,824) "\cr the 20-year life of the bond.-. Average
debl service payment per year would be approximately
$1,510,591.
1. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the proposed sale of the total
of $53,225,000 in General Obligation bonds, as noted in
Comment No. 1 above, would result in total interest co.-'
approximately $38,982,538. and total debt service of
approximately $92,207,538 000 in principal costs
plus $38,982,538 in intere-- he 20-year life of the
bonds. The average debt service payment per year would be
approximately $4,610,376.
5. According to Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's Office, the
proposed Series 2000B sale of Zoo Facilities Bonds in the
amount of $17,440,000 would result in an increase in the
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00214 per $100 of
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family-
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay $8.41 in
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of
these bonds.
6. Ms. Carey state- thai the proposed sale of the total
$53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in
Comment No. 1 above, would result in an increase in the
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00653 per $100 of
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay S25.66 in
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of
these bonds.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
21
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
7. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the cost of selling $17,440,000
Series 2000B Zoo Facilities Bonds, including fees for
private bond counsel, financial advisors, financial printing,
and the services of the Mayor's Office of Public Finance and
City Attorney, are expected to be approximately $103,677,
or 0.6 percent of the total value of the bonds issued.
8. As stated in Attachment III, provided by the Mayor's
Office, Ms. Hollenbeck states that the City's General
Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to three
percent of the City's net assessed property value, is
$2,114,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of
$70,481,563,870 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Ms. Hollenbeck
states that, as of April 15. 2000. the City had outstanding
$903,500,000 aggregate principal amount of General
Obligation Bonds, not including the subject Bonds of this
resolution, which is equal to 1.28 percent of the net
assessed valuation of $70,481,563,870. Therefore, Ms.
Hollenbeck advises that the City's current available
General Obligation bonding capacity is approximately
$1,210,946,916. The proposed sale of bonds in the total
amount of $53,225,000 would reduce the City's bonding
capacity from $1,210,946,916 to approximately
$1,157,721,916. However, Ms. Hollenbeck advises that the
City's available bonding capacity varies from time to time
as bonds are repaid and new bonds are issued.
9. Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the
sale of up to $17,440,000 in General Obhgation Bonds
(Series 2000B). However, all future expenditure
appropriations of the bond proceeds would be subject to
separate approval by the Board of Supervisors through
supplemental appropriation ordinances.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Attachment I
o >.
„ <
& u
§ 5
a t
s
l
I]
1 f
ai
E o -u
0J O K
-.
J-> C E
-
•H re -"1
3 X
<y to o
C to u
rl<H &
i—l c_
-c re
o c
.c o cu
H X X
<u o
• )-l i->
o re
O "O
or o>
-WW
O 4-1 u
<r to C
<r C — .
. o o
r- >-i
— ^ c.
X o
■ — ( J-J V-i
re C re
3 :
cr
-
• U
to o n
"C O CG
<u c c
1
y o u.
O CM
}-i i— i y
—
CX</> -r-l
_
i— i
" CJ
P re 3
,C —
X! -
■_
O J-i O
o a>
c ,c y
CSI 4J U
re in
Vj VjU
'—
<4J -O
r^
to vc to
ft) v£>-
M . •_
3(00
J-> o >.
rlH a
fl»2
c
Q) 00 4)
PLrH jr
O 2
D C
— - -
ai
*-» = a:
O BD c
0) 4-> tH
O O J-i •
Vj y O r-
— y vo
t
Vj y o
i
X -
rex m
I
— — ~ cr
O O c —
H: re </>
■
23
Attachment II
04/20/00 10:56 FAI 415 753 7248 SF ZO O PROGRAM MGMT ©002
A. Entry and Zoo Street
Visitors will be greeted by a new main entrance located along the Great Highway, siightlv
to the south of the old Fleishhacker Pool. It will include a multi-use area with bus and shuttle
drop-offs; a bicycle storage area, a disabled accessible parking area, and new visitor ticketing,
service, and retail areas. It will also provide an immediate view of the animals in the African
Savanna exhibit. The proposed parking area could be part of a new joint-use site with a new city
tertiary treatment plant for recycled water located underneath A new central pedestrian spine
will unite the discovery trail loops of each of the major exhibitions. Planned for a peak visitor dav
of 25,000 persons, this tree-lined spine will provide a new linear landmark for the Zoo and an
orientation and a sense-of-place in a restored native coastal marine California landscaoe for
visitors. The spine will include expanded food services, gift shops, information kiosks, directional
signage, ticketing, medical services, rentals, tramway access, and resrroom facilities. Adjoinine
this new green space corridor, there will be space for individual and large group picnicking and
areas for animal demonstrations, community and cultural events, and people watching.
F. Madagascar
This exhibit will display the unique lemur, reptiles, and other fauna of Madagascar. There
will be interactive devices that will showcase the specific projects and conservation efforts being
carried out by the San Francisco Zoo in Madagascar.
L Service, Warehouse, and Quarantine Facilities
The efficient operation of the Zoo requires adequate support facilities, located in areas
that facilitate clear communication among all staff. This phase includes die building or rebuilding
of some important service areas: faculties for animal quarantine, food storage facilities for animal
diets and visitor restaurants, and retail storage and horticultural support facilities.
24
APR. -19'
,4:53 CCSF PUBLIC FINANCE
TEL: 4 15 554 4864
OFFICE Or THE MAYOR
CITY HALL
1 DR. CARLTON 5 . GOODLETT PLACE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
EMILIE NEUMANN
KAREN R1BBLE
SARAH HOLLENBECK
SUBJECT: GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. SERIES 2000A B. AMD C
DATE: 04/19/00
The City's General Obligation bunding capacity, which is equal to chree percent of die Gry's net
assessed property value, is $2, 1 14,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of $70,481363,870 for
Fiscal Year 1999-00 As of April 15, 2000, the City had outstanding $903,500,000 aggregate principal
amount of General Obligation Bonds, nor including die sub|ccr Bonas of this resoluuon, which is
equal to 1.28 percent of die net assessed valuation. Therefore, die City's current available General
Obligation bonding capacity is approximately $1,210,946,9:6 "Die proposed sale of bonds in the
total amount of $53,225,000 would reduce die Gry's bonding capacity from $1,210,946,916 to
approximately $1,157,721,916 However, die Gry's bonding capacity varies from rime to time as
bonds are repaid and new bonds issued.
25
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit tee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Items 7 -14 - Files 00-0432. 00-0433. 00-0434. 00-0435. 00-0436. 00-0437. 00-
0438. 00-0439
Department: Treasurer /Tax Collector
Items: File 00-0432: Ordinance amending Part III. Article
3, Section 250 of the San Francisco Municipal Code,
to except certain transient merchants, that operate
at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium and agree to comply with all the «
and County of San Francisco's rules, from the
licensing and fee requirements otherwise
applicable to transient merchants under Article 3;
and enabling enforcement by means of citation.
File 00-0433: Ordinance amending Part III. Ar
3, Section 251 of the San Francisco Municipal Code
to define the term temporary business to mean a
business conducted for less than seven days and
excluding pumpkin sellers from the definition of
transient merchant.
File 00-0434: Ordinance amending Part III, Article
3, Section 252 of the San Francisco Municipal Code
to except certain transient merchants, that operate
at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium and agree to comply with all the *
and County of San Francisco's rules, from the
requirement that they apply for a license under
Article 3.
File 00-0435: Ordinance amending Part III. Article
3. Section 253 of the San Francisco Municipal Code
to reduce the fees payable by transient merchants
during the suspension period described below.
File 00-00436: Ordinance amending Part III.
Article 3. Section 254 of the San Francisco
Municipal Code to exempt those certain transient
merchants, that operate at Moscone Center or the
Bill Graham Civic Auditorium and agree to comply
with all the City and County of San Francisco's
rules, from the tax return fifing requirement
otherwise applicable to transient merchants under
Article 3 and to exempt all other transient
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
26
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
merchants from such tax return filing requirements
during the suspension period.
File 00-0437: Ordinance amending Part III, Article
3. Section 255 of the San Francisco Municipal Code
to exempt those certain transient merchants, that
operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham
Civic Auditorium and agree to comply with all the
City and County of San Francisco's rules, from the
bonding requirement otherwise applicable to
transient merchants under Article 3.
File 00-0438: Ordinance amending Part III, Article
3, Section 257 of the San Francisco Municipal Code
to eliminate the penalty on transient merchants
that violate the provisions of Article 3 during the
suspension period.
File 00-0439: Ordinance amending Part III, Article
3, Section 258 of the San Francisco Municipal Code
to exempt those certain transient merchants, that
operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham
Civic Auditorium and agree to comply with all the
City and County of San Francisco's rules, from the
licensing requirements otherwise applicable to
transient merchants under Article 3.
Description: The eight proposed ordinances would address City
regulations concerning transient merchants, which
are currently defined in Part III, Article 3, Section
251 of the City's Administrative Code (See File 00-
0433 below). Currently, the City (1) requires
transient merchants to obtain quarterly licenses
from the City; (2) requires transient merchants to
pay $500 quarterly license fees to the City, (3)
requires all transient merchants to obtain a $5,000
financial bond, (4) requires transient merchants to
file quarterly reports with the City; (5) imposes a
Gross Receipts Tax of ten percent on transient
merchant's gross sales which exceed $5,000, and
imposes certain criminal sanctions for failure to
comply with these provisions. All of the prop*'
ordinances would amend existing Sections of the
City's Administrative Code, except one of
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
11
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
proposed ordinances (File 00-0439). which would
add a new Section 258 to the Administrative Code.
File 00-0439: Under this new proposed Section 258,
those transient merchants who lease space at
either Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium, and meet the requirements of the City
by entering into a License Agreement with San
Francisco Convention Facilities, would be exempt
from (1) applying for a transient merchant license,
(2) obtaining a transient merchant license, or (3)
obtaining a financial bond, and therefore would be
exempt from all the transient merchant
requirements, including the transient merchants
quarterly license fee. as established in the CY
Administrative Code. All of these new pr
would be in effect during a proposed suspension
period, which would extend from the ei
of this ordinance to 30 days he Board of
Supervisors repeals the ordinal]
File 00-00432: Currently. Section 250 of Article 3 of
the City's Administrative Code requires all
transient merchants to obtain a license from the
City. The proposed ordinance would amend this
requirement to exempt those transient merchants
covered by the new Section 258 discussed above,
that lease space at Moscone Center or Bill Graham
Civic Auditorium. In addition, the proposed
ordinance would require that such license
provisions for other tiansient merchants be
enforced by the issuance of administrative
citations.
File 00-00433: Currently. Section 251 of Article 3 of
the City's Administrative Code defines transient
merchants as any person, firm or corporation who
(a) engages in a temporary business of selling and
delivering goods, wares and merchandise, other
than food or food products, within the City, and (b)
hires, leases, uses or occupies any building,
structure, shop. tent, railroad boxcar, boat or room
in any hotel, motel, auto court or apartment for the
exhibition and sale of such goods, wares and
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
28
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
merchandise. This transient merchant definition
specifically excludes (a) persons, firms or
corporations who exhibit samples only for the
purpose of securing orders for future deliver}-, (b)
sales at public auctions regulated by the provisions
of the Police Code and Part III of the Municipal
Code and (c) the sale of Christmas trees. The
proposed ordinance would also exclude the sale of
pumpkins from these transient merchant
requirements. In addition, the proposed ordinance
would define '"temporary business" to mean a
business conducted for less than seven days in any
calendar year and would require that any business
conducted for seven days or more in any calendar
year obtain a Business Tax Registration
Certificate.
File 00-0434: Currently. Section 252 of Article 3 of
the City's Administrative Code contains the
requirements for applying for a transient merchant
license. The proposed ordinance would make non-
substantive clarifying changes to these existing
requirements.
File 00-0435: Currently. Section 253 of Article 3 of
the City's Administrative Code requires that all
transient merchants pay (1) a minimum quarterly
fee of $500 for a license and (2) a Gross Receipts
Tax of ten percent of gross receipts in excess of
S5.000 per quarter. The proposed ordinance would
(1) reduce the transient merchant quarterly license
fee from $500 to $150, a reduction of $350. or 70
percent, and (2) eliminate the Gross Receipts Tax
for transient merchants, who lease space at
locations other than Moscone Center and the Bill
Graham Civic Auditorium, during the suspension
period. As noted previously, under the new Section
258 (File No. 900-043 c Ji transient merchants who
lease space at the Moscone Center and the Bill
Graham Civic Auditorium are exempt from the
transient merchant requirements, including the
transient merchant quarterly been Uso, the
suspension period would extend from the
dan- of the new Section 258 (File 00-0439) to 30
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
29
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Commute Meeting
days after the Board of Supervisors repeals that
ordinance.
File 00-0436: Currently. Section 254 of Article 3 of
the City's Administrative Code (1) requ::
transient merchant^ to file quarterly reports with
the Tax Collector's Office containing the amount of
gross n ad (2) authorizes the Tax
Collector- Office to examine the records of these
transient merchant- to verify the accuracy of the
quarterly reports and/or I tain the amount of
fees and ta: I to the City. The prop'
ordinance would eliminate the requirement that
transient merchant- file these quarterly
reports or pay such taxes to the City during I
suspension period, which i bove.
File 00-0437: Currently. S I Article 3 of
the City's Administrativi ■ - that be!
the quarterly h I by the City, all
transient merchants must fill bond with
the Tax Collector's Ofl itial injur
or losses that may !><• su-tained. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 255 to provide that
only those transient merchants that are require d
obtain a quarterly license be required the
$5,000 bond. Since under the proposed
amendments, transienl merchants at Mo-cone
Center and Bill Graham Civic Auditorium would be
exempt from the licensing requirements, those
transient merchant- would also be exempt from
these bonding requirement-
File 00-0438: Currently. Section 257 of Article 3 of
the City's Administrative Code state? that any
person that violates any of the provisions of Article
3. as described above, would be guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction would be
punished by a fine of not more than S500 or
imprisonment for not more than six months or
both. The proposed ordinance would eliminate
these criminal sanctions during the suspension
period. As noted above (File 00-0432). the
provisions of Article 3 would be enforced by the
issuance of citations.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
30
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Comments: 1. Ms. Susan Leal, the City Treasurer, advises that
Mr. Jack Moerschbaecher, the City's Convention
Facilities Director and Mr. John Marks. President
of the San Francisco's Convention and Visitors
Bureau approached the Tax Collector's Office to
propose the requested changes to the City's
Administrative Code regarding excluding transient
merchants at Moscone Center and Bill Graham
Civic Auditorium from the City's transient
merchants requirements. As indicated in a letter
dated October 12, 1999, from Mr. Moerschbaecher
to Ms. Susan Leal (Attachment I). Mr.
Moerschbaecher reports that Convention Center
customers have expressed concern about
application of the transient merchant tax to
merchants who have exhibits at trade shows and
conventions. According to Mr. Moerschbaecher, the
San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau and
Moscone Center "have received numerous
communications (from Convention Center
customers) protesting the potential application of
this tax to their shows". Mr. Moershcbaecher
states that, if 17 Convention Center customers who
have expressed concern about paying the tax were
to transfer their business to other cities, the City
would lose an estimated $4,300,000 in Convention
Center revenues. Additionally, Mr. Moershcbaecher
states that a survey of 9 cities, including 7
California cities (Anaheim, Burbank, Fresno, Los
Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and Santa Clara).
Portland, Oregon, and Las Vegas, Nevada, shows
that none of the 9 cities impose a transient
merchant tax.
2. Under the proposed ordinance (File 00-0439). a
transient merchant would be exempt from these
regulations, if the merchant leases space at either
Moscone Center or Bill Graham Civic Auditorium
and enters into a License Agreement for Pan
Francisco Convention Facilities. According to Mr.
Moerschbaecher, the existing License Agreements
are required to be signed by all show producers who
occupy space at Moscone Center or Hill Graham
Civic Auditorium. Mr. Moerschbaecher advises thai
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
31
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
this Licens : ! obligates such show-
producers to comply with all City government rules
and requirements, as well as the Operator's Rules
and Regulations, the San Francisco Convention
Facilities Public Safety and Fire Management Plan
and the Handbook for Meeting Planners and Show
Managers. Mr. Moerschbaecher reports that in FY
1999-2000 the City is estimated to receive
000 from the Li< reement fees at
Moscone Center and Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium. According to Mr Moerschbaecher,
such revenues are deposited into the Convention
Facilities Fund and arc used (a) to make debt
service payments on Mo>cone Center, which in FY
1999-2000 are estimated I ' 000. and (b)
to pay for th ting and maintenaj
Moscone Center and Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium, which in FY 1999-2000 are estimated
to be $15,151,000. The Li greemenl I
ool the sul posed ordinance and
would remain unchanged. As noted previou
under the proposed ordinance th jient
merchant quarterly . aid apply only to
transient merchants Leasing space at locations
other than Moscone Center and Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium, and would be reduced from $500 per
quarter to SI 50 per quarter (Files No. 00-0435 and
00-0 I
3. Mr. Doug Neilson of the Convention and Visitors
Bureau reports that the subject transient merchant
tax has been "sporadically enforced, at best, for
many years". Additionally, Mr. Nielsoi that
convention and trade show organizers have opposed
the transient merchant tax. as shown in the
attached memorandum (Attachment II).
4. As noted above, under the proposed ordinance
(File 00-0433). a transient merchant would be
defined as a business conducted for less than seven
days in any calendar year and would require that
any business conducted for seven days or more in
any calendar year obtain a Business Tax
Registration Certificate. Ms. Leal advises that the
reduction of the $500 license fee to the proposed
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
32
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
$150 license fee is consistent with the average cost
for the City's Business Tax Registration Certificate.
Ms. Leal also advises that the existing transient
merchant regulations which require payment of a
ten percent Gross Receipts Tax on receipts of over
$5,000 are proposed to be eliminated because these
regulations are extremely labor intensive and
practically unenforceable for the Tax Collector's
Office.
5. The Treasurer/Tax Collector reports that in FY
1998-99, the Tax Collector's Office collected a total
of $41,234 from quarterly license fees and Gross
Receipts Taxes from transient merchants, and that,
as of March 31. 2000, the Tax Collector's Office has
received approximately $16,000 from transient
merchant fees and taxes for FY 1999-2000. Based
on revenues for the first 9 months of FY 1999-2000.
the Budget Analyst projects a total of
approximately $21,333 on an annualized basis.
According to the Treasurer/Tax Collector, prior to
FY 1998-99. the City did not aggressively enforce
the provisions of Article 3 regarding transient
merchants. As a result, the Treasurer/Tax Collector
estimates that the City's collections from transient
merchants prior to FY 1998-99 were approximately
$3,000 annually.
6. Approval of the proposed ordinances would (a)
exempt the transient merchants who lease space at
Moscone Center or Bill Graham Civic Auditorium
from the existing transient merchant license
requirements, including quarterly license fees, (b)
eliminate the Gross Receipts tax, and (c) reduce the
quarterly license fee from the current $500 per
quarter to $150 per quarter for transient
merchants who lease space at locations other than
Moscone Center and the Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium. The Treasurer/Tax Collector estimates
that the City would receive a total of approximately
$1,500 annually (from an estimated 10 transient
merchant.-, who occupy space at locations other
than the Moscone Center or Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium, times $150). The Treasurer/Tax
Collector expects that the City will rece
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
33
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
additional quarterly license fee revenues, in
addition to the estimated $1,500 annual revenues
noted above, due to increased ability to collect such
fees resulting from the automation of the collection
system. The Treasurer/Tax Collector is not able to
provide an estimate of the additional revenues at
this time.
7. As noted in Attachment III, provided by the
Treasurer, the transient merchant revenues to the
City in FY 1997-9* 020, in FY 1998-99
were $41,234.38. and in FY 1999-2000, as of March
31. 2000. are $16,006.31 As noted above, under
the proposed ordinances, projected revenues in FY"
2000-2001 would be approximately SI. 500
annually, plus any additional revenues resulting
from automation of the collection system.
In FY 2000-2001 transient merchant revenues
could be reduced by approximately $19,833
annually, from the Budget Analyst's projected FY
1999-2000 revenues of $21,333 (Comment No. 5) to
approximately $1,500. However, the Budget
Analyst notes that data on transient merchant
revenues, including quarterly license fees and
Gross Receipts historically limited, and
therefore, actual reductions in revenues resulting
from the proposed ordinances could vary from the
projected amount.
8. According to the Treasurer/Tax Collector, the
Tax Collector's Office expects to reallocate staff
time to other more at revenue collection
activities, such as unregistered business
compliance activity, if less staff time is required to
enforce the transient merchant requirements,
including reporting and paying tax on gross
eipts. As stated in Attachment III. although the
Tax Collector's Office does not have specific
dedicated staff for transient merchant activities.
iff time and costs, resulting from Tax Collector
Investigators enforcing the existing transient
merchant ordinances. Licensing staff issuing
transient merchant licenses. and Cashiers
processing the payments, would be reduced.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
34
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Additionally, Attachment III states that "it is
anticipated that we will recognize further cost
savings and enhanced collections due to the
redeployment of investigators, who will be able to
concentrate on potentially more lucrative
investigation activities".
9. As stated in File 00-0432, the proposed ordinance
would require that the provision to obtain a
transient merchant license would be enforced by
administrative citation. According to Mr.George
Putris, Tax Administrator, the proposed
administrative citation program is currently being
developed. Mr. Putris states that actual fines have
not yet been determined but that the proposed
administrative citation program would be a minor
source of revenue to the City. Mr. Putris states
that, under the proposed administrative citation
program, Tax Collector Investigators would be
authorized to issue citations and handle them
administratively.
Summary: Currently, the City requires all transient
merchants to (a) pay $500 quarterly license fees to
the City, (b) obtain a $5,000 financial bond, (c) file
quarterly reports with the City, (d) pay a Gross
Receipts Tax of 10 percent on transient merchant's
gross sales which exceed $5,000. Additionally, the
Administrative Code imposes certain criminal
sanctions for failure to comply with these
provisions.
Approval of the proposed ordinances would exempt
transient merchants who lease space at either the
Moscone Center or Bill Graham Civic Auditorium
from all the transient merchant requirements
noted above, including the quarterly License fee.
Additionally, for transient merchants who l<
space at locations other than the Moscone ( 'finer or
Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, approval of the
proposed ordinances would (a) reduce the quarterly
license fee payable by the transient merchants to
the City from $500 per quarter to $150 per quarter,
ib) eliminate the Gross Ri ceipts Tax, (c) eliminate
the requirement thai transienl merchants file
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
35
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meet in-
quarterly reports with the Tax Collector's Office
containing the amount of gross receipts received,
and (d) provide for enforcement of the
Administrative Code provisions governing
transient merchants by the issuance of
administrative citations.
All of these new provisions would be in effect
during a proposed suspension period, which would
extend from the effective date of this ordinance to
30 days after the Board of Supervisors repeals the
ordinance.
According to the Treasurer/Tax Collector, in FY
1997-1998, the City collected $3,020 in transient
merchant quarterly license fees and Gross Receipts
raxes. In FY 1998-1999 the City collected
and in FY 1999-2000. as of March 31, 2000, the
City has collected $16,006 in such fees and taxes.
I'nder the proposed ordinances, the City would
only collect the quarterly license fees from
transient merchants wh<> lease space at locations
other than Moscone Center and Bill Graham Civic
Auditorium. The Treasurer Tax Collector estimates
that annual revenues from such fees would be
approximately $1,500, plus additional revenues
resulting from automation of the quarterly license
fee collection system. The Budget Analyst projects
FY 2000-2001 transient merchant revenues of
1.333, based on revenues of $16,006 collected in
the first 9 months of the fiscal year. Therefore,
upon approval of the proposed ordinan
transient merchant revenues from quarterly license
fees could be reduced by approximately $19,833
annually, from the Budget Analyst's projected FY
1999-2000 revenues ; .proximately
si. 500. However, the Budget Analyst notes that
data on transient merchant revenues, including
quarterly license fees and Gross Receipts I
historically limited. and therefore. actual
reductions in revenues resulting from the proposed
ordinances could vary from the projected amount.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
As shown in Attachment I. Mr. Jack
Moerschbaecher, the City's Convention Facilities
Director, reports that Convention Center customers
have expressed concern about application of the
transient merchant tax to merchants who have
exhibits at trade shows and conventions. According
to Mr. Moerschbaecher, the San Francisco
Convention and Visitors Bureau and Moscone
Center "have received numerous communications
(from Convention Center customers) protesting the
potential application of this tax to their shows".
Mr. Moershcbaecher states that, if 17 Convention
Center customers who have expressed concern
about paying the tax were to transfer their
business to other cities, the City would lose an
estimated $4,300,000 in Convention Center
revenues. Additionally, Mr. Moershcbaecher states
that a survey of 9 cities, including 7 California
cities (Anaheim, Burbank, Fresno, Los Angeles,
San Diego, San Jose, and Santa Clara), Portland,
Oregon, and Las Vegas, Nevada, shows that none
of the 9 cities impose a transient merchant tax.
Additionally, Mr. Doug Neilson of the Convention
and Visitors Bureau reports that the subject
transient merchant tax has been "sporadically
enforced, at best, for many years", as shown in
Attachment II.
Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinances is a policy
matter for the Board of Supervisors.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
04/18/00 TOE 14:50 FAI 415 976 5913 MOSCONE EIP PROJN PKOJ
Attachment
City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Convention Facilities
Willie Lewis Brown, Jr.
Mayor
Jack Moerschbaecher
Director
October 12, 1999
The Honorable Susan Leal
Treasurer /Tax Collector
City Hall - Room 140
Dr. Carlton B. Coodlett Place
San franctSCO, CA 94102
Re: Transient Merchant Tax
Dear Susan:
I would like to provide you with more data to help us assess the likely damage to the City's
convention business if the transient merchants tax continues to be applicable to our convention
facilities.
As you are aware, this tax currently could be imposefl upon .-xhibitors at conventions / tradeshows if
they intend to sell product from their booths. In our industry, the exhibit element of a trade show is
critical to the survival of that show. The financial success of a convention / tradeshow >s determined
not by attendance fees, but by the charges to exhibitors for exmbit space. Maximizing exhibitor
participation and exhibit space sold is the goal of our customers. Therefore, it should come as no
surprise that the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Moscone Center have received numerous
communications protesting the potential application of this tax to their shows. The letters and calls
have ranged from expressions of concern to outrage.
Attached to this letter is a list of those customers who have been vocal to date. They have paid or
will pay the City $4.3 million in direct revenue along with tens of millions of dollars in hote; tax and
sales tax. Fifteen of these customers are also repeat customers that have placed San Francisco in their
rotation patterns. Risking loss any one of these seventeen groups to San Diego, Las Vegas or
Anaheim over the transient merchants tax manes no sense. The information provided is specifically
limited to those shows that have formally protested the transient merchant tax. Each day the list
grows longer.
While the transient merchant tax might be seen as an appropriate levy on a merchant at a consumer
show m some small venue m the City, the imposition on customers that have paid the City millions
in taxes and revenues and who could choose to go elsewhere seems imprudent.
Please contact me if you need further information.
Very truly yours,
JacKM&erschbaecher
99 Grove Street, «204, San Francisco, CA 94102 - Telephone (415) 554-6178 Fax (415) 978-5913
38
'04-18-00 09:01 From-SrCVB CONVENTION DIVISION 415-227-2S4B Attachment II
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 17. 2000
TO' Severin Campbell. Budgei Consultant
FROM Doug Neilson, San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau
RE: TRANSIENT MERCHANT TAX
The city's Transient Merchants Tax code has been sporadically enforced, at Dest, for many years.
When there has been an effort to enforce it, it has been adamantly opposed by convention and
tradesnow organizers, and viewed by them as being nickel-and-dimed when San Francisco is
already one of the most expensive cities in which to hold an event. It would also be a tremendous
administrative nigntmare for them as well as everyone else involved.
Most recently, four (4) convention and tradeshow organizers voiced their strong resentment toward
such a tax if implemented during their event. By name they are: MacWond, the National
Association of Elementary School Principals, the Amencan Speech-Language-Heanng
Association, and the National School Boards Association. Together, these organizations and their
attendees have or will spend over $35,000,000 in the city during their stay and over $850,000 in
Moscone Center in rent and food & beverage alone.
The four (4) examples given above represent only a small sample of the 55 to 60 conventions and
tradeshows that meet in Moscone Center on an average each year. Most of the groups
occupying the convention center that have an exhibition component as a part of their event, do
have exhibitors who sell product dunng the event However, it is only a very small percentage of
the total number of exhibiting companies.
Currently, most of these groups are not even aware of the merchant tax. if, and when, they are
made aware of it, we will have a larger problem on our hands and will give a definite edge to all me
California cites we compete with, which do not impose the tax.
The amount of money tne city could ever hope to collect m merchant taxes would be insignificant
to the total revenues generated by conventions and tradeshows However, the revenues lost by
the cancellation of just one convention due to the enforcement of this tax code could never be
redeemed from all the merchant taxes the city could ever hope to collect for many years to come.
If you have any further questions, please do no; hesitate to call me at 227-2514. Thank you.
cc- jac* Moerscnoacner, City ana County of San Francsco
jonn Marts. San Francisco Convention & Visitor Bureau
SAN FRANCISCO CONVENTION £ VISITORS BUREAU • 201 Tnira Street Suite %0 • San Francisco. CA 94103-3T 85
Tei 415 974 6900* Fax 415 22V 2602 •T7Y 415.2272619* San Francisco f astfa* * US anu Caruca l 800220 574?* Werj Site «
39
Attachment III
Office of the Treasurer
& Tax Collector
City and County of San Francisco
City Hall .Room 140
P\ Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place. San Francisco. C
M BAN I 1 \I . 1 restorer
I \\ \i \NKI1 1 1). f Wei Assistant I nasurer
Phone: (4.
MEMORANDUM
To: Severin Campbell, Budget Analyst
From: Francis Nguyen, Head of Property Tax License Division
Florence Mar. Director, Bureau of Delinquent Revenue
Date: April 19,2000
Re: Transient Merchant Fees
The numbers below reflect total amounts collected under the Transient Merchants
Ordinance in recent years (based upon the S c pstration fee, plus 10% surcharge
on sales over S5.000).
Note that in FY9S-99, our office began a c n Francisco
Convention Facilities to proactively inform vendors of their obligation to register with
our office, and the increase in collections reflects this effort.
FISCAL YEAR AMOUNT COLLECTED
FY96-97 53,736.40
FY97-98 20.00
FY9S-99 $41,234.38
FY99-00 SI 6.006. "5 las
The new ordinance proposes that the surcharge be eliminated, and that the registration fee
be set at SI 50.00, the average amount charged to local businesses who register with our
office. Under the new ordinance, we will collect a SI 50.00 quarterly registration fee from
transient merchants who exhibit at venues other than Bill Graham and Moscone Center.
Last year, there were 10 such vendors who registered with our office.
We are currently working on contacting exhibit halls in an effort to automate this process
as much as possible, which will reduce our time and expense in enforcing this ordinance.
Under the existing ordinance, the staff time required includes an Investigator (a total of 2-
3 weeks FTE at a salary range of S2326-3489). plus License division time to issue the
paperwork, and Cashier division time to process the payments.
It is anticipated that we will recognize further cost savings and enhanced collections due
to the redeployment of investigators, who will be able to concentrate on potentially more
lucrative investigation activities. However, the net impact of this ordinance revision on
our total collections is uncertain.
40
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Item 15 - File No. 00 - 0598
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT)
Resolution approving the expenditure of funds for the
emergency work to perform immediate remedial
improvements to the sewer located on 4 th Street between
Bryant Street and Brannan Street.
S542.540 Estimated Project Costs
1995B Sewer Bond under Job Order No. 0140J
The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) advises that on
February 15. 2000, PUC Sewer Operations identified an
emergency condition on 4 th Street between Bryant Street
and Brannan Street. The sewer had failed and immediate
replacement was required in order to protect the health,
welfare, and property of the citizens of San Francisco. On
February 23, 2000, the PUC declared the sewer
replacement an emergency. The repair work consisted of
replacing the existing 42-inch diameter sewer with
approximately 600 feet of 42-inch diameter fiberglass pipe
and 42 feet of 12-inch diameter clay pipe on 4 th Street.
According to Mr. P.T. Law of the Department of Public
Works (DPW). in accordance with Section 6.60 of the
Administrative Code, the PUC initiated expedited contract
procedures on February 23. 2000, to procure the necessary
construction services. D'Arcy & Harty Construction. Inc.,
submitted the lowest quotation and was awarded the
contract in the amount of $447,890. According to Mr. Law.
the estimated sewer replacement cost is S542.540, of which
$447,890 is for a construction contract and $94,650 is for
DPW planning, design and construction support, and
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) traffic
management.
Final project costs will be determined when the final
documentation provided by the contractor- is received and
reviewed. According to Ms. Christine Tang of the PLC. the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
41
Memo to Finance and Labor Commit'
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Budget:
final project costs are not expected to exceed the estimated
total of $542,540.
The estimated cost of the project is $542,540, including
$447,890 for construction contract costs is shown below.
Final Construction Contract ; 7.890
DPW Bureau of Engineering 50,650
DPVV Bureau of Construction Management 38,000
DPT Traffic Management 6.000
Estimated ('
Comments:
1. Invitations for proposal- were faxed to 18 contractors on
February 24, 2000. Two quotations were received by PUC
from qualified contractors on February 29, 2000. The PUC
reports that D'Arcy & Hartv Construction, Inc.. submitted
the lowest quotation and was awarded the contract in the
amount of $447,890. The following table lists the
contractors who submitted quotations, the amounts of the
quotations and the LBE status of the contractors:
Contractor
D'Arcy & Harty
K.J. Woods
Quotation
$447,890
-000
LBE Status
LBE
LBE
2. Mr. Law reports that the work commenced on March 2.
2000 and was completed on March 28. 2000.
3. Attachment I. provided by DPW, contains a description of
the subject sewer replacement work. Attachment II
provided by DPW. contains further budget details for
engineering and construction management costs of the
sewer replacement project. Attachment III. provided by
DPT, contains DPT traffic management budget details for
the pi'oject.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
42
Attachment I
Page 1 or 2
CW.274E
SECTION 02722 SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
PART 1 - GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION
A. Work Included: The work specified in this Section includes:
1. Construction of 42-inch Hobas Fiberglass Pipe main sewers on
crushed rock bedding.
2. Sliplining existing 3'x5' brick wing with 12-inch diameter no-dig
vitrified clay pipe (VCP).
3. Construction of 10-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) culverts.
4. Lining existing 3'x5' brick wing with 1-inch thick spray mortar
(deletable item).
5. Construction of cast-in-place or precast concrete manholes.
6. Televising existing active side sewers (quantity can be increased or
decreased).
7. Repair and replacement of existing side sewer (deletable item).
8. 6 or 8-inch diameter side sewer connections (quantity can be
increased or decreased).
9. Removal of existing sewers and sewer structures.
10. At the conclusion of work, cleaning existing catchbasins located
within the project limit.
11. Post construction television inspection of newly constructed main
sewers.
12. Connections to and between sewers, structures and culverts.
13. Furnishing and installing cast iron water trap including cleanout cap
for catchbasin (deletable item).
14. Backfilling voids underneath the pavement with sand outside the
sewer trench limit (quantity can be increased or decreased).
02722-1 Sewerage Systems
A3
Attachment I
Page 1 of 2
CW-274E
15. Removal of cable car tracks and yokes within sewer trench
(delctable item).
16. Handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste, toxic
materials and serpentine soils including all incidental work
(deletable item).
17. Temporary repair and monitoring existing sewer line.
18. Plugging existing culverts
19. Plugging and filling existing sewers and filling annular space
between existing 3'x5' brick wing and new no-dig VCP with slurry
grout.
1.02 RELATED WORK SPECIFIED ELSEWHERE
A. Other contract documents, including Drawings. Relevant Sections of the
SFDPW Standard Specifications and these Specifications apply to the work
specified herein.
B. Division 1, General Requirements.
C. Section 02225 and Section 01570
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Department of Public Works Standard Specifications, July. 1986.
B. ANSI/ASTM C12 - Practice for Installing VCP Lines.
C. ANSI/ASTM C-425 - Compression joints for VCP and fittings.
D. ASTM CI 208 - Standard Specifications for VCP pipe and joints for use in
Jacking, Sliplining and Tunnels.
1.C4 SUBMITTALS
A. Furnish six copies of the certified report of the actual test results for VCP
pipes meeting the requirements of ASTM C700 for approval by Engineer in
accordance with the requirements of Section 305.05 of the SFDPW
Standard Specifications.
02722-2 Sewerage Systems
44
Attachment II
4/13/00
Cost Breakdown for ( J.O. # 0140J, Contract #CW-274E)
4TH Street Sewer Replacement
Bureau of Engineering
Classification
Title
Rate
Hi^rs
Cost
5210
Senior Civil Engineer
S
114
8
S
912
5248
Sanitary Engineer
S
98
15
s
1,470
5206
Associate Civil Engineer
S
85
70
s
5,950
5204
Assistant Civil Engineer
$
71
121
s
8,591
5202
Junior Civil Engineer
S
50
140
s
7,000
5366
Civil Engineering Associate II
S
73
299
s
21,827
5381
Engineering Student Trainee II
S
43
41
s
1,763
1426
Secretary
S
49
64
s
3,136
$ 50,649
Rounded: S 50.650
Bureau of Construction Management
Classification
Title
5210
Senior Civil Engineer
5208
Civil Engineer
5204
Assistant Civil Engineer
6318
Construction Inspector
Rate
Hours
Cost
S 114 12 S 1,368
S 98 25 S 2,450
$ 71 182 S 12,922
S 83 256 S 21,248
Total S 37,988
Rounded: S 38,000
45
Attachment III
S u
t E
C
D
E
LU
CO
C
o
c
:'•■
1 :
1'
T
CD
CO
88
;eg g
ss
r« in <P
88
o A m
888 8
o o m to —
? 8888
3 (M Ift N n
lAl^lAlA O
£ &
8S°
-2^0)
fl> — S-
= i= O
^ g
= E ^ £
i^ Is
re ' re
'■* K - a
46
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Items 16. 17 and 18 - Files 00-0606. 00-0609. and 00-0610
Department:
Item:
Amount:
Source of Funds:
Description:
Airport
Department of Real Estate (DRE)
File 00-0606
Resolution authorizing the Director of Property to acquire
1,764 noise easements from the owners of 1,764 properties
in Daly City, San Bruno, and unincorporated San Mateo
County as part of the Airport's Aircraft Noise Insulation
Program.
File 00-0609
Resolution authorizing the Director of Property to acquire
318 noise easements from the owners of 318 properties in
Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and
unincorporated San Mateo County as part of the Airport's
Aircraft Noise Insulation Program.
File 00-0610
Resolution authorizing the conveyance of one quitclaim
deed to a property owner in Pacifica to rescind a noise
easement previously acquired by the Airport.
$34,200,000
Airport Capital Projects Commercial Paper Fund
In 1992, the Airport entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the five neighboring cities of
Daly City. Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, and South San
Francisco and the unincorporated area of San Mateo
County, to pay for a portion of the costs of insulating
private residences in those cities against aircraft noise.
The Airport has committed up to $120,000,000 to provide
funds to the five cities which have signed the MOU with
the Airport. The proposed resolution, File 00-0606, would
increase the allocation by $34,200,000.
In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
provides funding, generally in the amount of SO percent of
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
47
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
the costs, to insulate private residences within the 1995
Noise Exposure Map (NEM) area around the Airport. The
1995 XEM area is smaller than the area covered by the
Airport's MOU with the five neighboring cities. For
properties in the 1995 NEM area receiving 80 percent
FAA noise insulation funding, the Airport pays the
remaining 20 percent of the insulation costs.
By providing funds to cover the costs of insulating
residences against Airport noise, the Airport can
eliminate potential lawsuits through obtaining noise
easement- from the property owners which permit the
Airport to conduct flight operations that would cause
noise and vibration on the properties. According to the
DRE. to date the Airport [uired approximately
8,000 noise easements for properties located in the five
MOU signatory cities.
File 00-0606
Approval of this resolution would authorize the Airport to
acquire 1 . T ♦ i 1 noise easements from property owners in
Daly City. San Bruno, and unincorporated San Mateo
County. These dwellings are all located in the area closest
to the Airport, which is the noisiest area covered by the
Airports MOU. The proposed easements are among the
list of anticipated easements submitted annually by the
cities to the Airport's Finance Department. These noise
easements would remain in effect for 20 years. The total
estimated insulation costs of $34,200,000 would be
expended from the Airport Capital Projects Commercial
Paper Fund. $22,400,000 of the funds would be used to
insulate 1.260 homes that are outside of the 199.^ XEM
area and. therefore, ineligible for FAA funding at an
average unit cost of $17,778 per home. $11,800,000 of the
funds would be used to insulate 504 homes that are
within the 1995 XEM area at a unit cost to the Airport of
$4,683 per home (representing the Airport's 20 percent
share of the total cost per home of $23,412). The
estimated cost to insulate the homes allows for
unanticipated changes in insulation costs and changes in
the designation of the noise insulation area. The cities
that are located within the 1995 X'EM area are eligible for
FAA grant funds and must apply to receive the FAA grant
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
48
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
funds. The Airport would advance up to a maximum of
$34,200,000 ($22,400,000 plus $11,800,000) to expedite
completion of this project. Daly City, San Bruno and San
Mateo County would then reimburse the Airport for the
advanced funds if FAA grant funds become available. The
FAA has committed approximately S2, 000,000 in grant
funds for San Bruno. The FAA will make the grant funds
available to San Bruno as various phases of the projects
are completed and the FAA has received and reviewed the
required grant documentation.
File 00-0609
Approval of this proposed resolution would authorize the
Airport to acquire 318 noise easements from property
owners in Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno. South San
Francisco, and unincorporated San Mateo County. The
Airport is required under the 1992 MOU to obtain
approval from the Board of Supervisors of new addresses
of proposed easements before it can acquire the noise
easements from the homeowners. These addresses are in
addition to the list of anticipated easements submitted
annually by the five neighboring cities to the Airport's
Finance Department. This new list, in addition to those
previously submitted, includes all eligible dwellings
covered by the Airport's MOU. Anticipated funding for the
318 easements would be provided by available unspent
funds of other easement projects, interest earnings and
FAA reimbursements. These easements would remain in
effect for 20 years. The Airport estimates that the cost to
insulate 318 homes, at an average cost per home of
$15,000, would amount to 84.770,000. Portions of the
cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco are eligible
for an 80 percent reimbursement of the costs by the FAA.
The Airport is uncertain of the number of homes in San
Bruno and San Francisco that are eligible for the FAA
reimbursement. The cities of Millbrae. Pacifica and San
Bruno have $11,900,000 in remaining allocations under
the 1992 MOU Noise Insulation Program total allocation
of $120,000,000. All of these funds, however,
committed to noise easement projects under the L992
MOU already approved by the Board of Supervisors.
According to Ms. Osaki, the FAA has committed an
estimated $5,000,000 in granl funds for San Bruno and
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
49
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
$140,000 in grant funds for Millbrae as a contributioi
the remaining MOU allocation of $11,900,000. The grant
funds will be made available to San Bruno and Millbrae
as various phases of the project are completed and th<-
FAA has received and t the required grant
documentation.
File 00-0610
Approval of this proposed resolution would permit one
property owner, from whom the Airport had previously
acquired a noise easement, to withdraw from the Aircraft
Noise Insulation Program (i.e. "quitclaim" a previously
authorized easement). The Noise Insulation Program
contract permits homeowners to withdraw from the
program if they choose The subjeel property is located in
Pacifica.
Comments: 1. With regard to the proposed quitclaim deed under File
00-0610. Ms. Osaki state- that the Airport has already
paid $15,000 to the City of Pacifica for the easement from
the property owner who now wishes to withdraw from the
Aircraft Nfoise Insulation Program. Attachment I is a
memorandum provided by Ms. Osaki addressing the
reimbursement of such funds to the Airport. Attachment
II is a memorandum provided from Mr. Harry Quinn of
the DRE explaining: why the property owner wants to
withdraw from the Aircraft Noise Insulation Program.
2. Ms. Paula Jesson of the City Attorney's Office, ad .
that the proposed quitclaim deed under File 00-0610,
which would rescind the noise easement purchased by the
Airport from one property owner, would create no new
legal exposure for the Airport because the owner of the
property in question has voluntarily declined to
participate in the publicly funded Aircraft Noise
Insulation Program. The Airport will still have complied
with State airport noise regulations by virtue of having
offered noise insulation to this homeowner, according to
Ms. Jesson.
3. The City Attorney's Office has affirmed that the
purchase of noise easements enables the City to comply
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
50
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
with State legal requirements and should result in
eliminating costs to defend against noise-related lawsuits.
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolutions.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
51
San Francisco International Airport
:. 2000
?C Sox 8097
Sin fruncnco. CA »<12a
T«t «50 7«4 5000
* S00£
j. com
Bryce Sutherland
Budget Analyst's Office
l390Markei Street
Suite 1025
»""•" San Francisco. CA -
COk«iSSiO<
CITY ano county
o> sn *ra*osco
File: 00-0610
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
teNRv 1S tj<«»N Advances previously disbursed for quitclaim deecs are reimbursed to the Airport through
pksioint adjustments made in subsequent advances paid to the cities.
LARRY MAZIOLA
VIC7 H*lilCSM7
ilCHAIl s. srnunsnv
•-1NDA S. CLAYTON
caryi no
Ven truly vours.
3^ BfcX.
Saily Osab
Seruor Administrative Analvsi
)0«* L MARTiH
A/RVOR7 Slttt'CTOH
h:\noise\cuitrsinib.GC
52
Attachment II
ty and County of San Francisco
Real Estate Division
Administrative Services Department
MEMORANDUM
April 11,2000
TO: Harvey Rose
Budget Analyst
FROM: Harry J. Quinn J^2
Assistant Director of Property
SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing conveyance of one quitclaim deed
to property owner in Pacifica to rescind grant of noise
easement previously acquired.
In conversation between Bryce Sutherland of your staff and John Panieri of this Division, the
following is a summary of the most common reasons, based on our understanding, that property
owners have given for wanting to withdraw from the noise insulation program:
1. Owners want to sell the uninsulated home and not commit a potential buyer to the
rights that are granted to the Airport under the easement;
2. Owners want to withdraw from the program because some aspect of the planned
insulation fails to meet their perceived expectations; and
3. Owners do not want to pay for additional structural repairs that are not covered under
the MOU programs, i.e., dry wood rot damage to be corrected before installation of
acoustical windows and doors.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call John Panieri at 554-9864.
t^ry
ce Sutherland, Budget Analyst
HQ/JP'wtc
I/users/JP/NoseEsmntRescsn2 4-00
554-9850
Office of the Director of Property
-> r \/~« m. rr A%>nmia c; 1 1 1 » a ADO
53
San Franritrn P.A9410?
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Commute Meeting
Item 19 - File 00-0613
Department:
Item:
Location:
Purpose of Lease:
Lessor:
Lessee:
No. of Sq. Ft. and
Rent Per Month:
Annual Rent:
Source of Funds:
Term of Lease:
Right of Renewal:
Department of the Environment
Department of Real Estate
Resolution authorizing a now Lease al 1212 Market Street
for the Department of the Environment and accepting
donations of materials and services.
1212 Market Street (basement, ground and first floors)
ii] area, office space and bicycle storage
Yully Company, LLC
City and Countv of San Francisco
r for $10,536 per month
annually). Approximately $2.67 per square foot per month
for the 3.763 in retail and office >nd approximately
SI. 00 per square foot per month for the 500 squ;<
basement bike storage space.
$126,432. This annual rent would be adjusted beginning
October 1, 2000 and each following October 1. to cover
increases in the Landlord's operating expenses.
Adjustments would be based on the Building Owners and
Managers Association Experience Exchange Report
(BOMA).
According to Ms. Francesca Yietor of the Department of the
Environment, the S10.536 in monthly rent is included in
the Department of the Environment's Fiscal Year 2000-
2001 budget requ>
Four years, commencing upon completion of the tenant
improvements. The lease is scheduled to begin July 1. 2000
and to terminate June 30. 2004.
One one-year option to extend. Rent during the extension
term will be adjusted by the annual percentage increase in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
BOARD OF SUPERYISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
54
Memo to Finance and Labor Committee
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting
Utilities and
Janitorial Services: Landlord is responsible for utility and janitorial services.
Tenant
Improvements:
Description:
The Landlord is providing the majority of improvements at
an estimated total cost of $80,000 to $85,000, for
remodeling. The City is to pay the Landlord a City
contribution to these improvements of up to $20,000, and
the Landlord will pay for the balance of the costs, estimated
to be up to $65,000.
The proposed resolution would authorize a new lease of real
property at 1212 Market Street for the Department of the
Environment. The proposed lease for a total of
approximately 4.263 square feet will be used for three main
purposes: (a) 2,069 square feet on the ground floor for an
EcoCenter: Ob) 1,694 square feet on the first floor for office
space; and (c) 500 square feet in the basement for bicycle
storage.
According to Mr. Dunn of the Department of Real Estate,
the EcoCenter on the ground floor (2,069 square feet) wi 
TVNews
OpenLibrary